I agree. It's all about the "total package" for me. I want it to fly right and look great doing it. It seems to me that often people who make comments like "who cares about eye-candy, it's the FM that matters" are usually trying to rationalize not purchasing some payware add-on. But to get back on topic, this 182 looks really nice. I may have to sneak the credit card into the computer room this evening. It's now reached the pathetic point where if my wife sees me pick up my wallet in the evening she gives me the "look" and asks "what are you buying now?" in a menacing tone... :D

>I agree. It's all about the "total package" for me. I want>it to fly right and look great doing it. It seems to me that>often people who make comments like "who cares about>eye-candy, it's the FM that matters" are usually trying to>rationalize not purchasing some payware add-on. >>But to get back on topic, this 182 looks really nice. I may>have to sneak the credit card into the computer room this>evening. It's now reached the pathetic point where if my wife>sees me pick up my wallet in the evening she gives me the>"look" and asks "what are you buying now?" in a menacing>tone... :D>>You have it better then I do!My wife just asks, "are you buying any "planes" today?"LOL

>It seems to me that>often people who make comments like "who cares about>eye-candy, it's the FM that matters" are usually trying to>rationalize not purchasing some payware add-on. I'm convinced that they're trying to rationalize that they're not flying a "real" airplane, and that "somehow" not caring about eye candy makes it more real! IMO, real or virtual flight, without scenery, isn't flying; it's just getting from here to there!He,he,............I couldn't say that, if it wasn't for the many retired commercial pilots, who I know, that now fly small airplanes for a good look at the earth............again!L.Adamson

Jimmi for the record I was only talking about the Flight1 172 and 152 not the A36. The Dreamfleet models and this release are on the same level as far as quality. The Flight1 172's flight model never felt quite right to me and that's the only reason why I would say Coronado beats it out. The Coronado FDE is awesome and very realistic feeling (I've flown the real thing before). If the F1 172 got an update to the FDE I would change my mind in a second as to the comparative quality of these two add-ons. I know some will disagree and maybe it's due to some using Flight Simulator with a joystick versus as yoke/peddles configuration. I will admit visually these two add-ons are awesome

Yeah, there is a bit of the "I'm so hardcore I don't need pretty visuals" thing going on there sometimes...

..........And who lives near Duxford then eh? heheDave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

About the Flight1 C172R: Find the line "elevator_trim_effectiveness =" in its aircraft.cfg and change the 1 to 0.25. That made a huge difference for me.

<>I respect your opinion but have my own. I am VERY favorably impressed by the Carenado 182 and have quite a bit of time in the machine ITRW. Also, Caranedo's C210 is one of my "go to" high perf. singles (and I owned and have a BUNCH of time in that machine.)But I disagree that the flight model, including stall/spin characteristics of the 182 "knocked it out of the ball park" relative to Real Air. The 182 stall is fine but no better than the RealAir 172 or any of their other fantastic offerings. As for spins, while it is impossible to actually duplicate spin dynamics in this sim, the 182 at least hints at it but so too does the RealAir 172 and RA's more recent commercial offerings like the 260 and the Spitfire are AT LEAST as capable in the spin regime as the 182 and somewhat better IMHO. Certainly, the RA machines are not knocked out of the park by ANY freeware or commercial add-on of which I am aware.Again, I am FAVORABLY impressed with the 182. My crituques would include:1. The yellow boxes around the pop ups.2. The guages such as the AI can be clicked on supposedly to expand their size which is a great feature that FSD is known for (DF as well) but the 182 guages, when clicked on just duplicate themselves in a slightly different position and do not expand at all. If anything, they might get slightly smaller.3. There is a SERIOUS balloon when selecting full flaps. It has been a few years since I've flown the 182RG but I don't recall that effect. Most Cessna full flaps settings produce almost all drag and little to no additional lift. I know of no similar aircraft where going to max flaps produces the GREATEST amount of life relative to the other settings. If my memory is faulty, I stand corrected.3. I'm not sure about the power/flap/gear settings in terms of realism. In all airplanes I fly, I was taught to determine the above settings so as to target a specific speed and or rate of descent for example..."Approach Level" (the configuration to use when approaching the IAF and flying the proceedure before intersecting the glideslope...and "Approach Descent" when on the glidesplope.In the 182 to fly 90 kts, which is an appropriate Approach Level configuration, I used 17 in. and 2400 rpm which seemed realistic. But to fly the glideslope at 400 fpm, I had to use 15 in. (bottom of the green) 2400 RPM with gear down and 20 degrees of flaps and still got almost 90 kts. To slow below 90 kts, FULL flaps and gear were required...or power had to go below the green.Again, I am ready to be corrected by someone with more recent time in the 182 RG but my recollection is that with full flaps and gear, you would have to "drag it" to the runway with much more power than 15 in.For the third time though, I am pleased with the 182 overall and think very highly of Carenado's work.Regards,Jim

Well, I bought it and took a spin and I'd agree with most everything Jimmi has to say. It's wonderful looking, flies very nicely (although I wouldn't say it's noticeably more convincing than F1's 172 - I'd put them in about the same league - which is very good), and the VC looks great and doesn't kill the framerate. As far as guage fluidity goes, it's as good as any standard VC, but not nearly as smooth as RA's Spit and 260 - basically as fluid as the defualt C172 and F1's 172 for comparison. Certainly very flyable from the VC. The 2D panels are awesome as well, particularly the lowered panel view which looks very realistic...

Yeah I have to agree. I certainly don't think that overall in terms of flight-modelling the 182 blows RealAir's stuff away by any means and particularly not the most recent stuff...

Funny how someone mentions how much they hate 2D panels and love VC's - because I hate VC's and love 2D panels lol. The thing I really like about this one is that Carenado did an equally great job on both so that the user can decide themself which to use.As for the Flight dynamics- I think they are great too - the ballooning with the flaps seems realistic to me - at least in the real 172's I fly I find the first two stages always cause quite a balloon effect, I haven't flown a 182 yet though.

Is the VC refresh rate system or video card dependant? I tried the F1 172 last week and I had pretty sluggish instrument refresh in both 2D and VC. Other than that it was very well done. I fly a 182 frequently and the screenshots of the panel were more or less identical to the one I fly so I gave it a try. Carenado has certainly done something with the VC refresh. The instruments are not quite as crisp as RealAir

<>I was referring to the LAST notch of flaps which are generall nearly all drag and little to no lift. In the Caranedo, the last notch give the greatest amount of lift which doesn't seem at all realistic from my experience.Regards,Jim

<>Everyone in this hobby has a right to participate any way they choose and I certainly see where you are coming from...but let me explain why others prefer the accuracy of flight models.Many of us RW pilots...as has been written about in the last couple of issues of Flying Magazine, came to the hobby for the primary purpose of honing RW flying skills and especially instrument approach proceedures.Given that, the outside of the airplane is meaningless. In the RW, of course, viewing an aircraft in flight from the exterior is a dangerous enterprise...and possibly a "once in a lifetime" experience...except for parachuteists...but they have just a brief glimps don't they? They can only zoom OUT!(: Regards,Jim

I have the Cessna 210 and so far she's my favourite GA. I love the look of Caranado's planes but can honestly say, once I'm 'up in the air' so to speak, I rarely use spot view. I'm sure most of us who buy these kinds of planes will be the same. Now... how can I justify buying this one!?!Best RegardsBoone,[email protected]"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle. It's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."