Sign in to follow this  
OwenHewitt

Need suggestions for larger single engine prop

Recommended Posts

I've been looking for a replacement for the DF A36 in FSX. Since it doesn't sound like it is going to be ported to FSX before the end of the year at the earliest, I'm not interested in waiting around for it that long.I'm particularily interested in a good VC. I've seen all the raves for the SF260, but I really was looking for something a little larger... plus while the VC looks gorgeous, I have to admit I find the exterior model sorta ruins it for me-- it looks a bit "toyish".As for the Carendo F33, it looks like the VC is not one of the stronger points.What else am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>I'm particularily interested in a good VC. I've seen all the>raves for the SF260, but I really was looking for something a>little larger... plus while the VC looks gorgeous, I have to>admit I find the exterior model sorta ruins it for me-- it>looks a bit "toyish".>I happen to like the SF260's exterior. I think that the FSX bump mapping on the wings, which gives depth to the sheet aluminum and rivits looks great. I use this wing view for screen pics quite often.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172568.jpgL.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also flown A LOT with the DF A36. And I too miss it dearly. I gave the SF260 a try but really don't like the VC at ALL! It's way to clean and flat and grey. Besides that I don't like that kind of airplane. Right now I am flying the defauls FS X Cessna 172! The VC really surprised me: high res textures and so on. Can't remember seeing a payware Cessna/172-like addon as good as the default FSX one...! It's one of the better default planes! (There is A LOT of difference in quality between all default aircraft, so don't let that fool you!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I've also flown A LOT with the DF A36. And I too miss it>dearly. I gave the SF260 a try but really don't like the VC at>ALL! It's way to clean and flat and grey. Besides that I don't>like that kind of airplane. >>Right now I am flying the defauls FS X Cessna 172! The VC>really surprised me: high res textures and so on. Can't>remember seeing a payware Cessna/172-like addon as good as the>default FSX one...! It's one of the better default planes!>(There is A LOT of difference in quality between all default>aircraft, so don't let that fool you!!!)Yeah, I've been flying the default mooney because I wanted more giddy-up, but the VC textures in the mooney seem to be of lower quality compared to the other default aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grreg,I have been flying the C400 in FS9 and loving every minute in it. I was wondering how it does in FSX on frame rates. My frames are satisfactory in FS9 but not great. Been hesitate in picking it up for FSX mainly aftraid the frames may not be to my liking (10-12 or below). My system is below.Thanks for any help.CarlDell E510, P4-3.4g, 3gram, 7600GS..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,I have both the C400 and The Saratoga in FSX. My system is a middle of the road for FSX. Since the SP1 update, performance allows me to fly FSX all of the time and not have to go back to FS9 at all (About 25FPS after SP1). I use TweakFPS for FSX and all sliders are almost maxed out.The Eaglesoft Columbia is the better of the sims but is a real frame rate killer on my system (Drops to about 8-9 FPS). The Saratoga is fine and the FPS are great in both VC and 2D.Hope this helps a little,Cheers,Ron SagelNEAR KCHSAMD 64-3500+, 2gigs of RAM, 2 NVIDIA 6800's in SLI Mode, 24" Viewsonic Display, GOFLIGHT Console and CH yoke/pedals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the C400 and find the frames in VC more than acceptable. It has a great cruise speed and altitude, and the model and dynamics are just excellent...For reference, my PC specs below.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaIntel Core 2 Duo E6700ASUS P5N32-E SLI Deluxe Motherboard4GB Corsair VS DDR2 667Mhz RAMInno3D 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 590MHz VideoASUS MW221u 21" Wide Screen LCD2 x 320Gb WD SATA DrivesCreative X-Fi Platinum Sound Lian Li PC-B20B Aluminium Black CaseMS Vista Ultimate OEMCH FlightSim Yoke USBCH Pro Pedals USBTrackIR 4 Pro and Track ClipMSFS FSX Deluxe Edition Full install at 1400x960x32Check out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ron,I was afraid of what you mentioned about the FPS drop. Are the FPS you mentioned around heavy airports like KSEA etc or is it bad with just flying outside of the populated cities as well? Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Perth,Sure agree with you on the dynamics,and just overall flying when I fly in FS9.. That is why I want to really get this little jewel for FSX but with my system it may be very disappointing. May give it a try if they still have the 30 day return policy and the 30% off. Also noticed a few repaints in the library. I hope they work in FS9 as well.Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for the Eaglesoft 400.On my system while locked at 30 FPS the default 172 runs between 28-30 and the 400 drops it down to around 25-27 FPS.The VC is excellent the Avidyne cockpit has lots of features and the plane is just fun to fly.It's very fast for a piston single and the speed brakes are great fun.Come in a little hot on an approach flip the speed brakes and face plant the instrument panel.Lots of fun.Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have known better the FSX textures will not work in FS9.Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yeah, I've been flying the default mooney because I wanted>more giddy-up, but the VC textures in the mooney seem to be of>lower quality compared to the other default aircraft.>O yes! I have flown the Mooney almost exclusively in FSX, but once I wanted to fly a plane with high wings for a certain reason: I picked the FSX Cessna 172. I couldn't believe my eyes...! After that there was no going back to the Mooney... I've tried the er... Mause (whatever) also, but the gauges are ugly, very low res. Anyway, I'm only flying the C172 now! Though I miss the propeller lever... it gave you one thing more to do while flying... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of Aerosoft's BeaverX. A lovely aircraft! Jeff ShylukAvsim Product Reviewer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree- actually I have found the stock FSX C172 as real as any 172 simulation I have seen before (I fly this plane). What for me is really excellent is the trim stability. In an approach, I fly to the glideslope intercept at 2200RPM and 90 knots, then reduce the RPM to 1800 at glideslope intercept, and the airctaft will immediately assume a 90 knot indicated speed at around 500 fpm descent, excellent for a 3 degree glideslope. The FSX default model does it perfectly. I just can't wait to get the Reality XP GNS-430 installed into this bird.The other sim that has always done this correctly (at least in the 172) is Elite.Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl,On my lower end system AMD64 3500/ ATI 9800 Pro 256/ 1 gig RAM the C400 in FSX with SP1 frames are descent ( locked at 20 ) and holding it there....unfortunatley I can't run SP1 without blurries... frames with the C400 are an issue without SP1, barely holding on to 15 FPM on my system.cheersGreghttp://www.fs2crew.com/linepilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little FSX GA prop aircraft that frankly surprised me with its quality would be the Aerospace Liberty XL2 from Eaglesoft. It's a very contemporary aircraft with a really high-end glass cockpit. You don't get much in the way of liveries, but what's there is appealing. What I enjoy about this aircraft is it's airfile: it's fast without being overbearing like the Mooney, it's agile, but not wild like the Extra, I found it to be an extremely stable and forgiving flight platform, even more than the Cessna. The VC is very nice (not as fine as the BeaverX, in my opinion), and in the same vein as the BeaverX, the cockpit is made for visibility and sight-seeing. In response to the original poster, though, the Liberty XL2 is much smaller than the BeaverX, so if you're looking for bigger aircraft, the Liberty XL2 ain't in it. Jeff ShylukAvsim Product Reviewer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I am a big fan of Aerosoft's BeaverX. A lovely aircraft! >>Ahhhh yes, I have that one too. Just brilliant for bush>flying.>>Just wish there was a bit more available for FSX in terms of>GA aircraft.>>Cheers,>>Chris Porter>:-outta>>Perth>Western Australia>>Check out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at>http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.htmlHi Chris,Very nice RTW site you have going there - I'm glad that you've added the Columbia 400 to your hangar for the flight. It sure should do the trick on getting you across some of those longer legs. :)Best,Owen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this