Questions about four XP payware planes

[jfri 42]

I intend to get my first add on plane for XP 10. I look for a single engine GA aircraft. As far as I know these four are the best offerings available. What are their strong points compared to the other ? Which is best ? Here are my thoughts and questions about them

 

1) Airfoil labs Cessna 172

 

How good is this compared to the A2A C172 for FSX (which I have)?

 

2) SMS DHC-2 Beaver

 

My expectation here are high. I have the impression that it is more realistic than what I have in the Aerosoft Beaver X. If I take of in this plane and set max power (throttle rpm fully forward) and leave them there what is going to happen with the SMS Beaver ? In the FSX Aerosoft this is going to work fine in real life certainly not I have been told. And not in realistic virtual Beaver like the SMS one I expect. Will my high expectations be met ?

 

3) Carenado C210 Centurion + REP package

 

How realistic plane will this package give us ? Can it be compared to a A2A offering ?

 

4) Carenado Beech F33 + REP package

 

Same as the C210. And which of these two Carenados would you consider to be the best one ?

 

 

Buying all four would be to expensive I think but I might pick up more than one. All of them looks interesting and high quality.

[mdavis 10]

My reply won't help you much.  I have the Carenado C210 and F33.  I did not purchase the A2A aircraft back when I used FSX so I can't compare realism.  I do know that many have said the Carenado with REP packages are excellent but I don't have the REP added to mine.  They are great for my flying the way they are.

 

I do not have the other two aircraft.

[airlinejets 709]

I'll give it a go.

 

I presently have the Airfoillabs and the Centurion REP. When I was using P3D, I had the A2A Cherokee and the 182. Their level of detail is quite amazing and gives you a little more realism for now, as the X-Plane alternatives are still being developed. The on-board avionics are better than the Airfoillabs and the Simcoders, as I think they have more functionality. 

 

For pure fun of flying, the Centurion is by far my favorite. Just starting it is an adventure. There are many blogs about hot starts and quirks of the big Continental engine. The Centurion is a rugged, relatively quick aircraft and would be ideal for any would-be GA pilot.

 

I hope this helps a little bit,

[Longranger 148]

1) I have both the Engine Management and Sound and Effect Inhtegration of the A2A is a bit better. But the AirFoilLabs is still in development. From the Flight performance they aren't so different from each other.

 

2) Sorry I don't have the Beaver X, but the SMS DHC-2 is really nice. Not necessarily the most realistic engine management, but everything feels nice and works well. The author also took care with the water landings. Normally they don't look so realistic, but with the beaver they do. It can even lower the height of the waves and anchor the aircraft.

 

The Centurion is a bit faster, can fly higher and is pretty touchy with its landfing gear. The Bonanza is lower, since it has the same engine but no Turbo and so it can't fly as high and it zhas a very tough landing gear. The plane doesn't really care if it has to land on gras. The REP plug-in significantly ußpgrades the sound effects and together wit the free HeadShake Plug-in they also simulate engine vibrations. It's menus don't look as good as the A2As but otherwise they are not so far behind. They also offer now outside inspections and you cahn tow the planes. In the next update of the REP plug-in it will no longer modify X-Planes engine logic but replace it..

[alpha12125 213]

For the REP  TL;DR   None of them are on the level of A2A

 

However REP is in touching distance of A2A.

 

What is as good as A2A: The realistic flight model, the failures, the saved failures over multiple flights, deterioation, engine management, electronics etc.

What is weaker: The model is Carrenado, so it is not as beautiful as A2A but it is not ugly. The sounds while improved are not as good, the walkaround is quite basic and just a series of steps. the whole menue is abit more clunky and not as fancy as A2A (however that is in the eye of the beholder), No fogging of windows.

 

REP is currently the best you can have for x-plane and it is the first serious contender for A2A like quality on x-plane. It is not there but the developer is very active and reacts to suggestions and constantly improves the planes. You can argue that the stuff that makes or brakes an airplane is there and correctly simulated but the edges are abit rough. Personally I would say to anyone that wants a highly realistic GA to get the REP Package

[jfri 42]

For the REP  TL;DR   None of them are on the level of A2A

 

However REP is in touching distance of A2A.

 

What is as good as A2A: The realistic flight model, the failures, the saved failures over multiple flights, deterioation, engine management, electronics etc.

What is weaker: The model is Carrenado, so it is not as beautiful as A2A but it is not ugly. The sounds while improved are not as good, the walkaround is quite basic and just a series of steps. the whole menue is abit more clunky and not as fancy as A2A (however that is in the eye of the beholder), No fogging of windows.

 

REP is currently the best you can have for x-plane and it is the first serious contender for A2A like quality on x-plane. It is not there but the developer is very active and reacts to suggestions and constantly improves the planes. You can argue that the stuff that makes or brakes an airplane is there and correctly simulated but the edges are abit rough. Personally I would say to anyone that wants a highly realistic GA to get the REP Package

 

From your reply I get the impression that the two Carenados with REP  are the best planes. That immediately raises the question which one to choose ?

Which of the four planes I listed do you own ?

[alpha12125 213]

From your reply I get the impression that the two Carenados with REP  are the best planes. That immediately raises the question which one to choose ?

Which of the four planes I listed do you own ?

i own all of them.

 

the c210 was the first plane rep did, the f33 is the same engine as the 210 but without the turbo, so it is quite similar from the management but doesnt like oversquare operation as much and you can kill the engine fast.  c210 is more a hauler and cruiser and makes high altitudes, the f33 feels alot more nimble and you can feel it struggeling above 10k. it realy depends on the style. as far as the functions go they both are similar.

 

the beaver i just bought in the sale because it was cheap but honestly haven't used it apart from a few flights not because it is bad, far from it, but didnt have time to devote yet.

 

the airfollabs is a great little plane with a walkaround, i used it in PE because it is rather slow and gives you enough time to work with atc the model is superb, the flightmodel etc is great aswell. i think they updated the engine failures now aswell but i havent flown the plane in a while mainly because it is to slow for my taste

 

For me i fly the c210 the most because when i want to fly GA i want to admire the scenery and with the c210 i can fly reasonably fast at 160ish kts IAS at 13000ft if i want to fly over the alps   At the end of the day you cant really go wrong with any of them. The difference between the F33 and the C210 is just the personal taste in what kind of plane you like.

[Don Quixote 76]

I have all of the addons in question and fly them regularly. The short version is: you can't go wrong with any of them. The slightly longer version:

 

The Soulmade Sims Beaver is the only one that doesn't have a kind of "accu-sim" functionality, so if you're looking for tear & wear simulation, walkaround features and so on this one may not be the right choice. Apart from that, it's a superb addon and extremely immersive. It has a great model, excellent sounds and flies wonderfully. And although the plane itself isn't complicated, it isn't a "lite" simulation. If you don't do the engine start procedure properly, for example, you won't get it to start at all.

It's also the only bush plane of the four in question, so if you like small airstrips and bush tires this is the one to get.

 

The C210 + REP has many features similar to A2A, but it's not quite on the same level yet. A2A has considerably better sounds (well, they have the best sounds of any aircraft addon) as well as more advanced engine simulation. However, the C210 still is extremely fun to fly, as mentioned by alpha12125 it's a real workhorse and quite quick too. REP offers wear & tear simulation, walkaround, in-sim checklists, improved flight model, and lots more.

Keep in mind that the Carenado model is an older one, and although it still looks very good it isn't quite up to the level of the newer offerings.

 

The F33 + REP has basically the same features as the C210, and also the same strengths and weaknesses. In comparison the Carenado model of the F33 is better than the C210, but it too isn't quite as polished as more recent ones.

Personally I like the F33 because it's a beautiful plane, but prefer the C210 as it's more fun to fly.

 

The Airfoillabs 172SP is, as of now, the closest to accu-sim you can get in X-Plane, and it even has some features that A2A doesn't have (such as an interactive walkaround where you actually walk around the plane and manipulate stuff directly, rather than clicking a menu). It also has the most complete (to my impression anyawy) simulation of wear & tear, engine simulation, and so on. The model is excellent and one of the best currently available in XP10. It also has some nice visual effects such as window fogging.

Personally I much prefer the Airfoillabs C172 over the A2A one (it just feels more "alive" so to speak"), although it isn't as good as the A2A C182, Cherokee or Comanche. At the end of the day it's still a C172 and not the most interesting plane to fly.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Airfoillabs model is quite heavy on performance. It's comparable to airliner addons such as the FF 757 or 767, so if you're struggling with performance perhaps avoid this one. But if you have decent hardware it won't be an issue at all (the other three addons all perform very well, by the way).

 

Overall, my favorite is clearly the SMS Beaver - it's the most immersive one in my opinion. 2nd place goes to the Airfoillabs C172, 3rd to both the Carenados with REP. But honestly they're all very good addons, and together with some of the other advantages that XP offers over FSX/P3D I'd put them very close to the A2A ones as far as enjoyment goes.

[jfri 42]

 

 

The Soulmade Sims Beaver is the only one that doesn't have a kind of "accu-sim" functionality, so if you're looking for tear & wear simulation, walkaround features and so on this one may not be the right choice. Apart from that, it's a superb addon and extremely immersive. It has a great model, excellent sounds and flies wonderfully. And although the plane itself isn't complicated, it isn't a "lite" simulation. If you don't do the engine start procedure properly, for example, you won't get it to start at all.

It's also the only bush plane of the four in question, so if you like small airstrips and bush tires this is the one to get.

 

From what you write and a youtube video I get the impression that this Beaver isn't better than waht I already have in the Aerosoft Beaver X for FSX. From the youtube video I could see that they set max power and leave it there without problems just like BeaverX.

 

 

The F33 + REP has basically the same features as the C210, and also the same strengths and weaknesses. In comparison the Carenado model of the F33 is better than the C210, but it too isn't quite as polished as more recent ones.

Personally I like the F33 because it's a beautiful plane, but prefer the C210 as it's more fun to fly.

 

What do you mean by not being as polished as recent ones ?

One thing caught my attention in the product description of the FSS i.e

'Fully interactive virtual cockpit.'

I don't see that stated for the C210. Does not all planes have virtual cockpit. It's a must for me since I use track IR.

 

 

The Airfoillabs 172SP is, as of now, the closest to accu-sim you can get in X-Plane, and it even has some features that A2A doesn't have (such as an interactive walkaround where you actually walk around the plane and manipulate stuff directly, rather than clicking a menu). It also has the most complete (to my impression anyawy) simulation of wear & tear, engine simulation, and so on. The model is excellent and one of the best currently available in XP10. It also has some nice visual effects such as window fogging.

Personally I much prefer the Airfoillabs C172 over the A2A one (it just feels more "alive" so to speak"), although it isn't as good as the A2A C182, Cherokee or Comanche. At the end of the day it's still a C172 and not the most interesting plane to fly.

 

You made me interested in the Airfoillabs 172SP again. By not being as good as the C182 Cherokee (which I have) do you mean not such an interesting plane itself like a C182 or a Cherokee and not related to the quality of the A2A planes.

 

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the Airfoillabs model is quite heavy on performance. It's comparable to airliner addons such as the FF 757 or 767, so if you're struggling with performance perhaps avoid this one. But if you have decent hardware it won't be an issue at all (the other three addons all perform very well, by the way).

 

I have a I7 4770K haswell OC to 4.5 GHz and a GTX 970 4 Gb videocard and 8 Gb RAM. So far after trying some scenery 8 Gb instead of 16 Gb seem to be the biggest problem since I have encountered low memory prompts.

[Morrigan 90]

 

 

From what you write and a youtube video I get the impression that this Beaver isn't better than waht I already have in the Aerosoft Beaver X for FSX. From the youtube video I could see that they set max power and leave it there without problems just like BeaverX.

 

Then I would advise you not to judge a plane by a single video. If you like bush flying, SMS Beaver is one of the best planes across all sims for that purpose. The sounds, visuals and flight model are simply AMAZING!

 

But to answer your actual question, just like in real plane, leaving throttle on max setting won't cause problems right away. But just like in real life, the temperature is rising and once it reaches the critical level, it may cause the engine failure. 

 

Two screenshots I made for you just now:

 

http://i.imgur.com/ccSPCIN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4n3OHS5.jpg

 

But that's not limited to that. Unlike in FSX, runways aren't flat. So you better not hit your prop aginst the tarmac on those tricky, bush approaches. Literally the best GA experience I had was in the Beaver. SMS did hell of a great job. 

 

And I think you misunderstood, all listed planes DO have visual cockpit moddeled. I think what Don Quixote meant, is that due to age of the model, it doesn't look as jaw dropping as most recent carenado planes (They visuals are really one of the best). Though I would argue that both C210 and F33 look amazingly good still. 

[CFIJose 5,485]

I have the Beaver X and I love it, but it's no Soulmade Sims Beaver. Not even close.

[alpha12125 213]

 

What do you mean by not being as polished as recent ones ?

One thing caught my attention in the product description of the FSS i.e

'Fully interactive virtual cockpit.'

I don't see that stated for the C210. Does not all planes have virtual cockpit. It's a must for me since I use track IR.

 

All cockpits are fully 3D. The carenado models got better over time, like every model. What he is saying that the C210 is a few years old. That means the textures are not as sharp and detailed as the newer planes. That means they are not bad, but in comparison you can see the age abit. Not quite as polished

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Good questions, and some very good responses above.

 

My quick answer is that out of the four aircraft in question, I own the SMS Beaver and the F33 with REP.  The reason isn't because I think that these are the 'best', but because it's the two that I'm the most interested in flying.  Essentially, at the end of it all, you could have the most realistically modeled aircraft ever, but if you have no desire to fly it, then it becomes a hangar queen.  :wink: 

 

The SMS Beaver is one of my favorite aircraft in X-Plane. However, I'm a bit of a DHC nut. I own an embarrassingly large library of material on every aircraft DHC has manufactured, I have a large collection of various items, images, ephemera, etc. and in addition, have owned nearly every DHC addon made by any developer for most of my sim platforms.  Sadly, I've only ever flown in an Otter (Right seat though! Yay!) and of course, numerous Dash 8's.

 

But my fascination with DHC aircraft aside, the SMS Beaver is extremely nice.  It looks superb, sounds excellent, flies believably well, and as mentioned above, is a fairly deep simulation.  The details are wonderfully done, and it includes a great selection of models.  It lacks the wear and tear that A2A lends, but short of that, it's every bit the equal to my A2A fleet.

 

The F33 with REP is one aircraft that I haven't had the time to put a ton of hours on yet, but I soon will - I bought one in FSE, and plan on flying it across Canada. From what I've seen so far, after about a dozen hours in it, is that REP has added a ton to this aircraft. I put a LOT of hours in the F33 in both FS9 and FSX, and I rank it among my very favorite aircraft, even with Carenado 'lite' systems.  With the depth that REP brings, this has refreshed and made current an old friend, in a world where A2A has upped the bar on what we expect from GA aircraft in our sims.

 

However, it's enjoyable to me partially because I adore the aircraft itself... it's worthwhile to note that graphically, the Carenado F33 is definitely dated. There's also limitations to the integration that REP can offer, since of course they're working with an existing model.
 

[tonywob 4,769]

I have both the Carenado F33 and the Airfoil Labs C172. In my opinion, the F33 isn't as polished as it is on FSX/P3D, but it's still a great plane although a little dated now in comparison to their newer stuff. I really loved the F33 on FSX with the RealityXP GNS units, and although we now have similar in XP, it just doesn't feel as well implemented.

 

The C172 is a great plane and is good as a basic GA plane you can get in XP at the moment. It can be very heavy on FPS, but there are lower resolution versions you can use (I have no choice). It's not as detailed in terms of simulation as Realair's, but it looks nicer and is currently my favourite GA plane for doing short-hops. I especially like the camera views it has.

[jfri 42]

I have the Beaver X and I love it, but it's no Soulmade Sims Beaver. Not even close.

 

Do you mean that the SMS Beaver is much better than the aerosoft BeaverX ?