Piper Cheyenne is released.

[windycloud 30]

I see it's available on simmarket. Can someone let us know how it is...and more specifically how it compares to Aeroworx B200.Thank you!Jason

[peppy197 165]

I checked out the site and saw that the downloadable is MORE (??) expensive than the boxed version? This is correct?The pics are incredible. Beautiful. And much much much better than FSD's Cheyenne, which I once used but have been unable to get it back up after a motherboard and HD change with loss of data. E-mailed FSD >> no response, what else is new?allen

[Guest HartmannH]

Hi,I don't think the price for the boxed version is correct. It should be the same as the download.

[peppy197 165]

Should not the downloadable be a bit cheaper tyhan the boxed, and not as posted at the aerosoft site?I would love to get this plane but will wait for this to be clarrified firstallen

[Guest JSPuonti]

I'm curious as to what the "early birds" think about it and would also like to know how it compares to Aeroworx's B200.

[peppy197 165]

I love flying the B200 from Aeroworx, XL version I believe. I also had another cheyenne, not this one though, and I liked it because of the side views from the VC cokpit, where you saw the spinning props and cone, very nice. This one should have that too of course. Makes for a nicer impression when turning for a landing, you get more feeling of the plane with these beautiful props in line of sight.But naturally, me too, I am awaiting the first impressions.Have you had a look at the Aerosoft forum? http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/Come tonite (east coast here) I may fail on my restraint once more and purchase it online, then will let you know. Oh dear me...which card to use this time...already using: GE-Pro; UT Can; UT USA; Aeroworx B200; Citation X; FSGenesis Mesh and Landclass: Captain SIm B757, B707; ATR 72; ASV6: FS REal time; RCV4; more...allen

[Guest JSPuonti]

Yes I'm watching the Aerosoft forums.Considering that a couple of people have already said they've downloaded the plane, I'm surprised no one's posting first impressions :|

[windycloud 30]

As for the lower price on the boxed version, that's the discounted pre-order price.

[moss1 11]

Hey everyone, I got her early today. It is just FABULOUS, GREAT, AMAZING.... The VC is just incredible. The sound package is from the real plane. I could go on and on, but anyone that knows Hans Hartman, knows what to expect. Worth the price IMHO. I haven't done more than a short circut thus far, so this is my first impression. I hope this helps anyone sitting on the fence.

[Guest Trans_601]

Thanks moss1 - looks great, might have to pick this one up.How does she fly?

[Yoda967 23]

Jason,I'll preface this by saying that am probably biased a bit, since I'm an Aeroworx beta tester, and have over 300 hours flying their King Air. I'll do my best to be fair.Comparing the King Air to the Cheyenne is not comparing apples to oranges, it's more like Macintoshes and Granny Smiths. Both airplanes are twin turboprops, but that's really where the comparison stops. To begin with, the B200 is about 3,500 lbs heavier than the Cheyenne IIXL, so it's not really in the same class.The Aeroworx King Air gives you four combinations of model:EFIS panel, Executive cabinAnalogue panel, Executive cabinEFIS panel, Aeromedical transport cabinAnalogue panel, Aeromedical transport cabinWith this airplane, the performance numbers and operating procedures are largely the same, regardless of the model. If you're a fan of high tech panels, the Collins EFIS-84 is very well modeled, and does everything you need it to.The Digital Aviation Cheyenne also comes in four flavors:Cheyenne ICheyenne IACheyenne IICheyenne IIXLAll four models come with the executive cabin arrangement. There are some performance differences between the models, most notably in their weight (the Cheyenne I has a max takeoff weight of 8700 lbs, while the IIXL can legally take off at 9474 lbs), but also in the engine department. There are three different variants of the Pratt & Whitney PT-6 modeled here, and along with that come some minor procedural differences. Don't expect a high-tech panel...the Cheyenne is "steam" gauges, all the way.If you prefer to fly with the 2D panel, the B200 offers a solid panel with a bunch of sub panels, accessible mainly through a strip of simicons located in the upper left portion of your screen. The Cheyenne's 2D subpanels are accessed primarily by means of click-spots. The B200 has VFR and IFR 2D panels for the pilot and co-pilot that can be accessed through click-spots, while the Cheyenne has a pilot's VFR, IFR and landing view but only an IFR co-pilot view.The VCs in both airplanes are extremely nice and fully functional, though to my eye, there is some fuzzy texturing in the Cheyenne. I won't report on smoothness of the VC instruments; it's my belief that smoothness in the VC is largely due to the end user's system, so your mileage may vary. That said, both airplanes run very smoothly on my 3.2GHz P4/1Gb RAM/GeForce 6600 - 256Mb system, even in the VC. I had no problems at all getting used to the feel of the Cheyenne when flying from the VC, and I've flown the King Air primarily from the VC since the V2.0.1's release last summer. The King Air maintenance module allows you to set the EFIS refresh rate with a slider should you have frame rate issues, and the Cheyenne's configuration tool offers some options that can improve frame rates, as well.With 300+ hours in the King Air, I've pretty well figured out its quirks, and I know I'll need to spend some time in the Cheyenne to do the same. One thing is for sure, new users will have difficulty taxiing either one. You can easily find advice on taxiing the B200 in the Aeroworx forum; such help has yet to appear in the Digital Aviation forum, but give them time.Both add-ons, as presented, press up against the limits of what can be done within FS9. The Aeroworx B200 offers tremendous systems fidelity, and can be flown using the real-world manual. The Digital Aviation Cheyenne seems to have a similar feel, though I haven't gone looking for a real-world manual yet. The manual does need to be read before launching either airplane...187 pages for the King Air and 172 for the Cheyenne. There are "gotchas" with both airplanes that you can avoid by taking an hour or two to read the manual.The Aeroworx King Air offers a maintenance module that tracks things like tire, propeller, and engine wear, and also penalizes you for setting flaps or lowering landing gear at too high a speed. The Digital Aviation Cheyenne comes with a nifty configuration tool which can be accessed from inside the sim, and allows you to add passengers and luggage, and select a number of options including a cold-and-dark cockpit and an analog VSI in place of the multi-function TCAS that's there by default.The biggest difference for the buyer who wants to spend his money TODAY, 7 July 2006, is that the Aeroworx King Air has been around for a year, so the developers have had time to discover and correct the problems that leaked past the testers. The Cheyenne has a couple significant problems at present, one of which is that the Course Direction Indicator (CDI) is reversed in NAV mode. The developer has acknowledged this on his forum, and plans to wait for more issues to crop up over the weekend before issuing a patch.Another difference between the product released last summer and the one released today is the variety of available liveries. There are 70+ repaints in the Avsim library for the King Air, and you're sure to find one you really like. At present, the Cheyenne comes with three liveries for each of its four models, but not all models come with a US registration...I haven't seen anything about a paint kit yet, but there is sure to be one.So, bottom line...which one should you purchase? I can't answer that one for you. It's purely a matter of personal preference. Both airplanes are fast, relatively complex, and can be legally flown single-handed (which means they can be realistically operated in the sim right out of the box).

[jagabom 21]

Another plane to buy. Oh well.JimCYWG

[Guest Dominique]

> smoothness in the VC is largely due to the end user's system, can't agree thereThe RealAir and ** planes show without any doubt that smoothness in the VC largely depends the way the (steam) gauges are constructed/programmed on a reasonably powered system.It is high time IMPO that developpers acknowledge the fact that 3D XML gauges in the VC, "

[Guest av84fun]

Kurt, thanks for your EXCELLENT and cleary unbiased comments! Much appreciated!Regards,Jim

[rdb 44]

Fully agree with you, Dominique.I'm a rather realist and don't expect it to be of Realair quality, but as i fly from VC only refresh rate is extremly important for me.Question to Cheyenne owners:How many Vcockpit sections does Cheyenne panel.cfg have?