I own both and really like both, but I must say the Porter is the funner to fly of the two.

I alternate fly “Grasshopper” bush flight on SkyPark so I fly similar flights, but they’re much funner in the Porter.

Granted it’s much slower than the Kodiak, but it flies so crisp and the beta in flight makes for exhilarating approaches and landings.

Again, if only the Porter were faster in real life, that’s all I’d fly… but for longer jaunts the Kodiak is handy, and a wonderful plane in its own right.

Those that have either or both, any thoughts to share?

Interesting comparison to bring up, I have the Milviz Porter but not the Kodiak, I've been holding back on getting it

Sorry to sort of butt in, but Id also be interested to hear more comparisons from users of both (Consider it a Bump😊 )

 

For me the Kodiak "feels" better. 

They ae both pretty good though, You cannot go wrong with either choice.

My thoughts are exactly the same. I'll add that for me, the Porter feels good right out of the box... the Kodiak is too twitchy in pitch until you add about a 30% extremity dead zone.  It also won't descend realistically without the CCM flight model mod (though the upcoming update might fix that.)  Then it feels pretty realistic. 

I agree about the speed... when I'm going somewhere on Vatsim, it's the Kodiak.  When I'm bush bashing in New Guinea, it's the Porter.  So much fun! 

Edited February 19, 20224 yr by Stearmandriver

I like both, but I can't fly Kodiak for longer trips because the whining sound in cockpit trigger my tinnitus.

The Kodiak is nice, but I never feel as though I've landed it. The final touchdown is not down to me but to some algorithm.

Come to think of it the Kodiak is a bit twitchy and is a bit odd in the flare, never thought of it as an algorithm, but that’s a perfect description.

Maybe that’s why the Porter feels so crisp in flight?

Never had the twitchiness with the Kodiak, but I do always fly it with my Fulcrum which has 8" elevator travel and strong springs, might well make the difference.

Edited February 19, 20224 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

11 hours ago, Los said:

Come to think of it the Kodiak is a bit twitchy and is a bit odd in the flare, never thought of it as an algorithm, but that’s a perfect description.

Maybe that’s why the Porter feels so crisp in flight?

Not for me, it is one of the best aircraft I have ever flown in a sim. I just can't get past the weird look of the porter. 

Edited February 19, 20224 yr by Bobsk8

 Climb/Descent: power, pitch, trim. Level off: pitch, power, trim... And I guarantee no airplane in MSFS will feel twitchy! 

I personally like Kodiak 🙂

16 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

My thoughts are exactly the same. I'll add that for me, the Porter feels good right out of the box.

I agree about the speed... when I'm going somewhere on Vatsim, it's the Kodiak.  When I'm bush bashing in New Guinea, it's the Porter.  So much fun! 

The Porter seem off for me judging from the system requirements. I fly in VR with
CPU 4770K 4.5 GHZ 16 Gb 2200 MHz RAM NVIDIA 2070 Super HP Reverb G2 VR set
Has any one tried the Porter with a system similar to mine ?

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

And I guarantee no airplane in MSFS will feel twitchy! 

Most airplanes in MSFS feel twitchy, especially all the default planes (without mods).  It's one thing they need to fix.  Also this matter of trim not operating correctly, but starting, pausing for a second, and continuing.  

That's what struck me about the Porter.  It and the Dc-6 are the two planes I've tried that didn't require the pitch axis to be toned down via extremity dead zone and reactivity.  So many others feel like they have no inertia at all in pitch. 

1 hour ago, jfri said:

The Porter seem off for me judging from the system requirements. I fly in VR with
CPU 4770K 4.5 GHZ 16 Gb 2200 MHz RAM NVIDIA 2070 Super HP Reverb G2 VR set
Has any one tried the Porter with a system similar to mine ?

I guess my system is not too comparable (I also don't sim in VR) but nothing about the Porter seems performance heavy to me.  No worse than, say, the X Cub.  But maybe someone has a better comparison. 

My system is an i9-9900k, RTX 3070, 32gb ram.

Just now, jfri said:

The Porter seem off for me judging from the system requirements. I fly in VR with
CPU 4770K 4.5 GHZ 16 Gb 2200 MHz RAM NVIDIA 2070 Super HP Reverb G2 VR set
Has any one tried the Porter with a system similar to mine ?

No VR but a 4770+1080 combo on a 2560*1440 res.. 30 FPS solid.

32 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Most airplanes in MSFS feel twitchy, especially all the default planes (without mods).  It's one thing they need to fix.  Also this matter of trim not operating correctly, but starting, pausing for a second, and continuing.  

That's what struck me about the Porter.  It and the Dc-6 are the two planes I've tried that didn't require the pitch axis to be toned down via extremity dead zone and reactivity.  So many others feel like they have no inertia at all in pitch. 

In my understanding there are two way to replicate actual forces acted on yoke/stick. First one is dampen sensitivity which give user feeling of pulling with force. The second is a  simple way ease up the control touch. Last one is up to user light touch skills. LOL

I have TM Airbus stick and Honecomb Bravo quadrant. I setup up once early after MSFS release follow some youtube tutorial . All my controls assigned to axis. Honey Comb Bravo trim wheel works like charm. I really have no complains about twitchy airplanes. They aren't in my world !