What is this Tamasha! C310? This is no PMDG? It's a simple

[Manny 1,293]

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Your first sentence Makes no sense at all. You may as well say an ATR-72 is no different to the Seminole.

Your second sentence makes little sense either because the Milviz C310 is not a 'simple twin'.  With all the realism switched on you need to fly by the numbers or break it, just as you would in the real world.  Heck, you even need to monitor the environment inside the aircraft to keep everyone happy.  I am actually guilty of often not going through the checklists or doing a run up, because not doing so has no negative impact on a 'simple' aircraft in MSFS.  The C310 is VERY different in this regard - it feels more real because of the state saving and wear and tear over time. Heck, I actually 'care' about the C310!

Your third sentence probably wouldn't get much support at a flight training company - something to do with costs, speed and complexity I would imagine.

YOU don't understand?  After reading your post my eyes shot back up to your name because it didn't sound like you. For a moment I considered some sort of medical emergency may be happening 🙂

🙂

[jimcarrel 688]

How can this turn into an argument? I don't know Manny, but it sounds like he's a "Tuber", I'm a "GA'er. Great! The biggest plan I fly is the DC-6, but mostly the GA's. We all fly what we like. Some like this plane and others like another. Heck, Manny, I don't understand the back-biting 

[PWJT8D 446]

2 hours ago, Manny said:

...Why is all this Drama for a simple Twin?

 

2 hours ago, Manny said:

...This is nothing but a but a bunch drama Queens.

 

1 hour ago, Manny said:

...Not trying to create a controversy

 

When literally all this thread has contributed is drama and controversy. Oh the irony. 

I may not be considering being a future customer of the 310 but I can at least respect Milviz's achievements on their hard work and hope that many people who like the 310 can enjoy it. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by PWJT8D

[lwt1971 7,413]

26 minutes ago, PWJT8D said:

When literally all this thread has contributed is drama and controversy. Oh the irony. 

'tis the curious case of the avsim'er who just can't seem to take anything that is not a favorite of theirs being talked about and getting attention... there sure does seem a lot of those on all the recent threads focusing on various new aircrafts that are landing on the sim... well, bless their hearts I guess, especially the drama queens who complain that others are drama queens.

I'm just word not allowed happy that all these great aircrafts are now here for MSFS (be they GA or airliners)... May has been quite the month in moving the sim forward by leaps and bounds, looking forward to what's still to come in 2022 and beyond for both the sim and 3rd party add-ons payware & freeware!

Edited May 5, 2022 by lwt1971

[The Flight Level 2,113]

@Manny Not sure if this makes a difference at this point of the thread, but the fuss is about the depth of the systems modelled in the C310R. There is no other GA plane available for MSFS that comes close. It is more than just another twin. Perhaps go to the MilViz site and see the 91 page operating manual. https://milviz.com/Online_products/Manuals/310R User Guide.pdf
Yes, many would call this a PMDG level detailed GA airplane.

[AvAngel 306]

It's a flightsim forum, what would it be if people were civil, accepted other opinions, and allowed people to fly their own way?

[dbw1 445]

I’ve got approx 1500 hours real world in the 310R many years ago primarily in forest fire suppression. I’ve got previous Milviz 310R and they were/are very good. Based on previous Milviz quality I have no doubt this will be very good and will purchase when I  get home.

the 310 requires a good knowledge of the flight manual and decent training to fly efficiently and safely. Example….. while approved for known ice with much accumulation you’ll lose 20 knots quick. A former coworker encountered moderate ice and could maintain altitude, managed the decent well, intercepted the ils and still needed 25”/2500rpm to maintain the glide slope.

Another 310 fact is on a hot day, 30’+ C keeping oil temp and Cylinder head temps out of the red was a challenge. I found keeping take off power to accelerate to 135+ kts then reducing to climb power got enough air to the engines would accomplish this. ROC was not much more than 5-600 fpm….ours had a VG kit installed the dropped stall speeds by 10 kts as we did a lot of flight right on the deck managing the fires…..but the VG upped take off weight to 5680# instead of 5500# which on a hot day reduced ROC….if you lost one on takeoff on a hot day you weren’t going to climb out. Plus they had locker fuel tanks which upped fuel on board to 1200#. Two of us on board, survival gear, a personal bag and we were at approx 5680#. 

The government agency I flew it for had excellent maintenance and equipment so they were heavier than average. 20+ years ago they were tcas equipped and had excellent weather radar. Before the gov’t job I spent several years in a SF340 so I recognized good equipment.

This is a great airplane. Fond memories. It’ll be good in msfs2020. Really looking forward to it. Be buying it shortly.

[fppilot 4,371]

11 minutes ago, dbw1 said:

This is a great airplane. Fond memories. It’ll be good in msfs2020. Really looking forward to it. Be buying it shortly.

Looking forward to your reports.  I logged 112 hrs in the original Milviz 310 for FSX, then another 165 hrs in the successor Milviz 310 Redux.  Only time after purchase today was for reading the User Guide and re-familiarization of the type.  Its been just shy of a year since I have flown the Redux in FSX SE.  Long overdue and much welcomed! 

Just wish it had a KAP140 equal to that of the Redux.

[Stearmandriver 2,296]

3 hours ago, Manny said:

They are comparable. They both a twins! 

The Wright Flyer and the F-35 are pretty comparable too, eh?  I mean they both have wings. Same basic thing..  😁

[sniper31 638]

50 minutes ago, AvAngel said:

It's a flightsim forum, what would it be if people were civil, accepted other opinions, and allowed people to fly their own way?

I hope you don't listen to much to these detractors. Many of us enjoy your reviews and input, and I, for one, appreciate your positive attitude compared to some of the others on here that are just plain mean peeps. 🙂  

[Manny 1,293]

12 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

The Wright Flyer and the F-35 are pretty comparable too, eh?  I mean they both have wings. Same basic thing..  😁

No One is a single engine GA and the other is a Jet Engline (Mutli Engine). But you could compare it with a single engine GA Aircraft 172sp for e.g

Edited May 5, 2022 by Manny

[AvAngel 306]

Just now, sniper31 said:

I hope you don't listen to much to these detractors. Many of us enjoy your reviews and input, and I, for one, appreciate your positive attitude compared to some of the others on here that are just plain mean peeps. 🙂  

Perhaps that's why people tell me I'm a shill and sellout to developers when I politely criticize a product someone obviously put a lot of work into but might not be 'as good' as a different one... I'll make comments, and criticize, but I really don't want to insult anyone... That might be an alien concept to the sim community it seems sometimes reading topics like this XD

[AvAngel 306]

1 minute ago, Manny said:

No One is a single engine GA and the other is a Jet Engline (Mutli Engine). But you could compare it with a single engine GA Aircraft 172sp for e.g

he's saying your comparison is as daft...

Saying every sim twin is exactly the same because it's a GA twin... its the same. You're utterly disregarding systems depth, appearance, features, type... I enjoy some of the feature 'light' aircraft too... heck I like the Carenado 170B almost as much as the //42 Kitfox... hell both are GA, single engine tail draggers, IDENTICAL, why should I own both? meh.

[sniper31 638]

4 minutes ago, AvAngel said:

Perhaps that's why people tell me I'm a shill and sellout to developers when I politely criticize a product someone obviously put a lot of work into but might not be 'as good' as a different one... I'll make comments, and criticize, but I really don't want to insult anyone... That might be an alien concept to the sim community it seems sometimes reading topics like this XD

See, the fact that you do criticize and also talk about good things is what I appreciate. If you review something and there is a thing you don't like, you don't have to yell or be a crazy, mean person. Just give your bad and good thoughts...pretty simple. I have watched every single one of your reviews and I think how you do them is the right way, for what ever that is worth.

Edited May 5, 2022 by sniper31

[Stearmandriver 2,296]

10 minutes ago, Manny said:

No One is a single engine GA and the other is a Jet Engline (Mutli Engine). But you could compare it with a single engine GA Aircraft 172sp for e.g

Naw.  They're both single-pilot vehicles with wings that engage in powered flight. I'm telling you Manny, they're the same darn thing... and so that's all there is to it. 

...Is what you sound like here.  You're saying that because the significant differences that exist between these two aircraft (and the MORE significant differences that exist in the quality of their sim counterparts) elude you, no one else should understand them either. 

Sorry man... but some of us do.  😉