I am considering purchasing the Aerosoft Beaver. Two questions for current owners.(1) How is the VC? I read some old threads from a half year ago and the story was that the VC wasn

I have it and I find it to be slightly below average compared to other payware aircraft (both old & new). The exterior model is very nice and there are lots of variations. The VC is at the lower end of payware quality in my opinion (even with all of the updates). It is not a bad option if you really want a Beaver, but I would not expect anything exceptional.

The external models are very nice, the flight models and sounds are pretty good, the 2d panels are ok, but the VC is very disappointing. The VC background graphics are not sharp, and neither are the gauges. If you can live with that, go for it. Otherwise, look to Carenado's Cessna 206 on floats for a much nicer interior experience.

I dunno, I'm very happy with it. The gauges look sharp enough to me. I fly at 1920 x 1200 or 1600 x 1080 though; I don't know if that has anything to do with it. I can say it is one of my favorite airplanes to fly. 'Course I'm a little biased as my dream is to buy one someday and cart people and stuff up north with it. Documentation is good. Has everything you need to fly it. I'm pretty sure you can go from cold and dark in VC.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Pretty much what the others have said. It's a great addon, easy on the frames, all the usual eye candy, and the VC is still good. I think some new texture work in the interior would bring it up several notchs. Although I have no regrets whatsoever on getting it, I find I fly the 206 amphib more now.The pics here give you a very good indication of what to expecthttp://aerosoft-shop.com/product_info.php?...3c3431e938d3ccdRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

I only own two payware planes - this one and the Dreamfleat Baron-XP. I like them both - but I like the beaver more for the sentimental than the technical. I find it to be a bit of a frame hog - even with NOTHING visible - just empty screen forward view with no gauges - its 4-6 FPS hit vs. any default aircraft. The VC is "eh" - the modern cockpit in particular is kind of lame. I tend not to fly in VC anymore - I went through a big active-camera-VC phase but now I'm deep in my "Radar Contact-RealityXP-etc." phase where I'm running a whole separate screen of gauges...Anyway, it's a great little plane for boppin around the bush, and it's got the right "feel" vs. the freeware aviat/maule alternatives...

I have had the plane for a well over year and it is by far away my favorite bush plane. I always use the "old" style panel that features basically a set of earlier era gages and a radio from the Dakota DC3. These gages are not complex and for the most part they can be expanded, in 2D, to allow easy viewing of the gage.There is no autopilot on any of the Beavers that are offered, so there is a great deal of hand flying required. The STOL features appear to be accurate and its a great addon if you fly in the Misty Fjords Scenery package.Tom

I, too, fly exclusively with the old panel in VC view.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

+ Great selection of models, livery+ Flight models feel right- VC is still weak by payware standards, even after 1.53 updateMy sense after playing with panel.cfg for a couple weeks is there's something odd about the VC geometry. Main panel is a little fuzzy (I can't read the Hg setting on the altimeter), but the modern avionics are well nigh unreadable; see http://forum.aerosoft-shop.com/viewtopic.php?t=6792 for screenshots.

Thanks all for some really great replies. I am sort of on the fence on this one, but will probably go ahead and get it. I too am a sentimentalist and just think she looks like a cool old bird. At least I will go in with my eyes open.

I've tried to tweak the Beaver VC panel by swapping in Reality XP's Flight Line T gauges to replace the craptacular default gauges in the slapped-together "modern" panel (and putting the old-school manifold and RPM gauges back in to replace the Mooney gauges), but something about the VC construction renders the gauges all but unreadable, very blurry. I've tried various combinations of things in the panel.cfg, but nothing seems to work. That's too bad, because other than the VC, this is a fantastic package, great to fly with a ton of models and paints.Maybe I'll check over on the RXP forums and see if anybody's come up with a workaround for this yet.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia