Does the Beaver have a fully interactive VC? It doesnt say on the website so I was just curious before I purchase.

Yeah, it's pretty awesome. It's one of my favorite add-ons. Beware though, it has no 2d cockpit whatsoever.The way they handle the VC is they have different camera views that take you to different areas if the cockpit controls. Great add on IMO.

Yes it does. The only switch that doesn't work is the cabin heating :-).It's an excellent plane and has quickly become a favourite of mine. You won't regret buying it.Paul

cool thanks for the replies. I think I will be buying this bad boy tonight!!

Make sure you also get the free Alcatrazz scenery from their website as well to make the package complete!

It's definitely a great buy for the variety and to have an amphibious and wheeled beaver, but one thing that bothers me about the BeaverX is the throttle quadrant. I think it looks a bit cartoonish with the solid color and simply shaped knobs. I actually made them all dark gray on the models that I fly; unfortunately you have to edit them all individually. Moreover, the gauge panel is a little blurry around the edges. The default beaver has more classic and authentic ridged black knobs, and a sharper more accurate panel. Basically, I've seen many many photos of beaver cockpits, and not one had knobs like the beaverx does. Sometimes one was white and another was dark yellow, red, or orange. I've seen only one with black, blue, and red knobs and they were ridged. Also I've never seen a beaver with the panel look of the beaverx. And the beaverx radio stack uses default gauges which look nothing like the radios found in real beavers.What I wish they would have done is model their cockpits as exactly as they could on actual beaver cockpit examples, kept the variants but made them each of higher quality, perhaps having fewer repaints. I would have definitely paid more for that if necessary. It would be nice too if you could get rid of the mounted garmin by clicking on it, as the FSD porter allows. Still, I recommend the package, since it has a great soundset and is fun and versatile. I just hope they elevate the authenticity the next time around, if they do decide to make the aircraft an aerosoft tradition.

They cant win. In the Aerosoft forum that exact methodology - modelling a cockpit from a real aircraft, has the Catalina WWII enthusiasts complaining about the absence of a WWII cockpit.Beaver was not designed for FSX, but adapted for it. Rather well, as it happens. And it was not intended as a procedural simulator like say, the Dornier 27, and it aint been sold as such. The volume of models and repaints was a key development choice, and it was always made clear that the cockpit was never intended to be a nuts'n'bolts recreation. Besides, on a fifty year old airplane that has been rebuilt and modified as many times as the Beaver, I don't see how anyone can say that `not one had knobs like the Beaver X`. Perhaps you simply haven't looked at enough pictures or lack first hand knowledge?Allcott

I don't agree with your dismissive logic.First, I realize that it was not meant to be a nuts and bolts reecreation (that much is obvious) but there's nothing wrong with my saying I'd have prefered it to be closer to that. I did say I would have paid more for the satisfaction. As far as the throttle quadrant and panel, they are of lower detail - contrary to the avsim review - than the default beaver and it would not have taken a huge amount of effort to bring them up to that level: crisper textures and a few more complicated polygons. The catalina issue largely is a request for variants which they are overextended to provide. That is not the same thing. I actually want quality over quantity. I will say though that I'd prefer vcs in the catalinas they are doing to be modeled closely on real life vcs. Taking the Carenado aircraft as examples, they simply look better. The beaverx interior at least was redesigned for fsx and the exterior has a number of new features. Also I said that in none of the pictures of beaver cockpits which I personally looked at - something like thirty - did they have knobs (or a panel) like that. So what's wrong with my saying it? It's a fact, isn't it? I never said "no beaver in the history of the human species has knobs like that". As you rightly point out, how would I know?And even if there were a Beaver with knobs like that I would still prefer the more traditional rather than plastic-looking knobs. So it also comes down to personal taste; what's more, partly because of the simple lighting in the sim compared to that of real life, they look cartoonish.Anyway, I still think the default beaver has a more accurate vc in the discussed areas. Add to that the yoke. :(

So on the one hand you admit your knowledge of Beaver cockpits is limited to thirty pictures, but still feel that warrants a conclusion that "the default Beaver has a more accurate vc in the discussed areas"?Is that just a bad choice of words - perhaps you meant `detailed` instead of accurate? If not, are you really claiming that your LACK of knowledge empowers a value judgement on the Beaver cockpit?Of course, if accuracy is the name of the game, one might ask where are the wheels on the default Beaver? They dont all operate on floats.Allcott

Yes I do mean detailed but also accurate. Nevertheless, in this case the terms are two sides of the same coin. More detail means greater accuracy. The onus is on you to provide the exception since I have already provided what appears to me to be the average. I think thirty is a good sample; I'll make it forty, fifty. How many have you seen and what should the standard be? Only the boys (girls too?) at Kenmore and a few others can do better. This one is sort of close, but would you look at the panel...http://www.bush-planes.com/images/Beaverinstrumentpanel.jpgI'm not a rivet counter, yet my opinion is unchanged. In their redesign they should have followed the default beaver's example and redone the knobs or made them more detailed.

Really?http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/haf/images/beaverinst.jpg[/i]Note, if you will, the choice of knobs.No such thing as a standard Bever panel. Not after 60 years. In fact, Kenmores STC ALSO extends to changing rivets and rivet positions. So count them, and you're still wrong.GoodnightAllcott

awesome picture... but!why are there three radiation stickers on the panel in the middle and middle right, and upper middle?And what is that old school moving map like device that doesn't seem to move on the right side?

>awesome picture... but!>why are there three radiation stickers on the panel in the>middle and middle right, and upper middle?>And what is that old school moving map like device that>doesn't seem to move on the right side?You think I know? The radiation stickers will be because this Beaver used `glow in the dark` gauges, and current Health and Safety regulations require that such devices are flagged. The moving map will be the Victorian equivalent of GPS. 60 years old, remember! ;)It's XP820, a 1961-vintage Beaver AL Mk I of the Army Historic Air Flight. See image in context: http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/haf/beaver.htmAllcott

Allcott,You should pay attention to everything I said and not simply jump on the pieces with which it is easiest for you to argue. First, the knobs in the picture you posted actually look most like those, the old school style which I prefer, in the default beaver; so is it that you want me to note the difference in knobs between the photo I posted and the one you did? Yeah, beaver cockpits look different, which is why I included a small summary of knobs I had seen. The purpose of the photo I posted, if you were paying attention, was to demonstrate a knob arrangement similar to but not exactly like that cartoonish set in the beaverx. I also implied that the panel looked nothing like that found in the beaverx. I am well aware of the variety of beaver cockpits.Again I will say, put slightly differently, that even if you could find a beaver with a throttle quadrant exactly like that in the beaverx, 1) I would still prefer the knob style found in the default beaver and in the photo which you posted 2) the beaverx would still be an okay but not great rendition, due to the lack of detail. You should address this latter point rather than merely my expertise on beaver cockpits. The panel in your photo doesn't look like any of the beaverx, nor does any beaver panel which I have seen, now approaching fifty. It is my opinion that the beaverx would have been better if it looked more like the beavers which you generally see, even if there is a truly oddball beaver out there with a vc like one of the beaverx's (I seriously doubt there is).Besides, if you think the beaverx's panel bmp and throttle quadrant look better - have crisper textures, more careful shading, and overall detail - than that of the default beaver, then you need to get your eyes checked.Apart from the obvious reasons, this is a silly argument since you, Allcott, have chosen to engage it in a way that conveniently misses my strongest points about quality and personal preference.

I didn't buy the BeaverX (when it was released) because I found the VC not as good as the default FSX Beaver... I'd love to have the different variations of the Beaver (wheels, floats, the lot) but I just don't like the graphics of the BeaverX. The FSX one is so much better!