FFS Saab 340? Opinions please

[FlyinIron406 3]

Hey fellow simmers,I am posting to gather some opinions on the new FFS (well, relatively new) Saab. It does not look too shabby. I don't want to start a dev. bash war, but please tell me how it compares to:-aerosoft cheyenne-pmdg 1900's-aeroworx b200Thanks in advance!!

[Guest Mr Chips]

Some recent comments here: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search

[brucewtb 249]

A fair effort at an addon that has some frustrations as you get into the detail. After three years I expected more from FFS and work in progress would be an honest description at this stage. Sounds are lousy but you can use alternatives. I have the impression that the folks developing this aircraft simply ran out of time and resources - they had little choice but to get it into the marketplace as FSX was less than two months away at the time of release. Hopefully there will be updates that iron out the current wrinkles. If you are into turboprops and have an nvidia card then by all means go ahead and purchase but many ATI users are reporting significant display issues.Bruceb

[FlyinIron406 3]

hmmmThanks for the insight on this guys!

[crosswind 825]

I run an ATI X850XT PE with no problems. I have not noticed any unfavorable fps issue as yet. I get about 29 - 34 fps in spare areas and about 18 - 26 in dense areas with airports i.e. KDCA by Cloud9 with megascenery and KCLT by ImagineSim.The sounds have more to be desired, but like a previous poster mentioned, there are alternatives.If you are looking for MajesticSoftware/Dash 8, FI/ATR or LDS quality, they are not quite there yet. The systems implemented have been done, although there are a few that have not been modelled, however they are systems that would not prevent smooth procedural work. I have not had a chance to take the aircraft through its full paces, but so far it is a pleasure to fly.Kroswynd

[Guest]

>A fair effort at an addon that has some frustrations as you>get into the detail. After three years I expected more from>FFS and work in progress would be an honest description at>this stage. Sounds are lousy but you can use alternatives. I>have the impression that the folks developing this aircraft>simply ran out of time and resources - they had little choice>but to get it into the marketplace as FSX was less than two>months away at the time of release. Hopefully there will be>updates that iron out the current wrinkles. If you are into>turboprops and have an nvidia card then by all means go ahead>and purchase but many ATI users are reporting significant>display issues.>>BrucebPersonally I love it, no framerate problems here and I am an ATI user with no issues. The textures take a few extra seconds to load in the VC when switching views... but I am wondering what examples you have of "ran out of time and resources"Granted the sounds are a little bland, but what exactly were you expecting from the whole package?And to the original poster, there is no comparison to the PMDG 1900 series. There are no systems modeled in the 1900 except the most basic

[Dillon 2,197]

I'm one of the ones having problems with this add-on. When in the VC many surrounding textures will not load up or come into focus. Surprisingly the framerate is stable. I have no problem with the sounds but they could be a tad bit better. FFS chose an interesting configuration for each model. One has a VC and the other has only a cabin. I don't know why the whole interior wasn't modeled like what you'd find with PMDG's B1900C/D series. Something tells me this had something to do with the problem I mentioned above and this was an effort to rectify something they hope wouldn't cased a problem for users. Low and behold users like me still have a problem. There's no way I could see anyone using the cabin only model.Another thing that's more visual than anything is the way the cockpit panel sits in the VC. For some reason FFS placed the forward panel lower than it should be in the VC. What you see looking forward is the window panes on the lower half of the windows versus the black glare shield that covers the top part of the panel. The VC as a whole looks decent it's just not realistic looking with the main panel sitting lower in the cockpit than it should. I

[tanker 15]

I'm an ATI 9800 Pro user and find that I can't run any of the VC models -FPS drops to below 10 even in level flight. (I can, however, run the Aeroworx B200 in VC mode with acceptable frame rates)In 2d mode, the IFR panel takes up most of the view, the visual 2d panel gives only thre most basic instruments and does not allow you to move the seat up or down.On the positive side, the flight model is very stable and begs to be hand flown. It's a good thing, because controlling altitude during descent involves flipping between panels and the autopilot controls are very small and difficult to read.Dale

[Staffan 12]

IMHO, I don

[Krister 51]

I certainly like it a lot! While the sound may not be quite Saabish, it's something they are looking into. Frame rate problems is not experienced by me and I love how easy and stable the plane is to fly on approach. It doesn't come with an FMS so you navigate using VOR, DME and NDB,This is a short movie I did the first day I had it installed, so pay no attention to procedures, speed etc :)http://www.alcom.aland.fi/kitte/pmdg/saab340.wmvn There are no 2D panel shots since I almost exclusively fly in VC, which the saab is very well suited for given the good framrate and nice viewing angels of the panels.

[flhx_ridr 28]

>IMHO, I don