31 minutes ago, Dutch727 said:

But there's a tension between those two desires

I think this is so with pretty much every aircraft and we can see how different developers resolve the tension, Carenado and A2A perhaps being on the two ends of a continuum (I am not including offerings like the Capitan Sim that do not even make it to the start of the continuum).  Personally, I prefer the A2A approach and the outcome that kind of investment of time and hard work brings about; but that is not realistic for every developer and I think Milviz got it right with the C310. It is also why I will eventually purchase the Comanche even though I really have little to no interest in a 1950s single piston aircraft; whereas with other developers that built quality aircraft but sacrifice the detail for time, I have to be really interested in the plane to purchase it.

9 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

As long as it behaves consistently and feels right I am happy.

For me, I will add "...as long as it also looks nice, has opening doors, has good tech support, and a complete panel without blank knock-out or punch-out spaces for missing instruments."

Absent opening doors and having empty punch-out spaces on the instrument panel makes it seem like the dev or the aircraft manufacturer gave up and the aircraft is missing something. 

It's one of several reasons why I have the Milviz 310 Redux in P3D and not the version in MSFS. The 310 in P3D has the REX's weather radar on the panel whereas the version in MSFS has that large blank space in the middle of the panel. 

 

Edited June 19, 20232 yr by bofhlusr
Typo.

This thread reminds me of a conversation between a best selling author and a new writer.

Newbie: "I can't believe I'm sitting at this table with a famous writer! I have just one question...some of the reviews of your books are quite poor. Does that bother you?"

Author: "The cover slip on my last book says best selling, not best written."

 

2 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Absent opening doors and having empty punch-out spaces on the instrument panel makes it seem like the dev or the aircraft manufacturer gave up and the aircraft is missing something. 

I couldn't care less about opening doors. Some people talk about this as if it is one of the most important aspects in a flight sim. This is about flying the aircraft, not being on the ground opening and closing doors. It may be important for youtubers and other streamers, but saying an aircraft developer gave up because the aircraft doesn't have opening doors is a bit too much. Black Square are probably the best GA aircraft in the sim and they don't have opening doors.

Opening doors, or even removable ones like the Wilga, are nice to have but by no means essential.

As for blanking plates, a lot of real life aircraft have them.  It is usually a spot for instruments such as Radar or GPS that are not available in every model or is an optional extra.

Well, the lack of doors is why I wouldn't give Blacksquare a top rating. In a way, they are chickening out of delivering a full addon. Not that I blame them for it. I wholeheartedly recommend their products to everyone and enjoy them a lot, but other developers invest more effort in stuff like external model. Is that essential? Well for a full GSX immersion, doors are really really good to have. Does that change a pilot's routine? No, but neither does having well modelled 3D cockpit gauges. IMHO, you cannot criticize Blackbox Simulations for their interior modelling and at the same time praise Blacksquare. 

As for me, I like 'em both 🙂

Peter

On 6/18/2023 at 7:18 AM, Aglos77 said:

I'm still flying Torquesim sr22 from xplane until A2A arrives. I am not currently convinced by any GA addon from mfs.

Black Squares planes are really quite good. Im really impressed with the King Air. 

I own the MilViz 310R and also three of the Black Square aircraft. I think they are all really excellent sim versions, and I have enjoyed flying all of them in MSFS. That said, I find myself flying the Black Square aircraft much more often, mostly for the cockpit aesthetics and the deep engine management. I would appreciate opening doors, but I don't have to have them.  

I am wondering if those who don't mind not having opening doors can also ignore not having the external modeling of movable elevators and rudders, and liveries.

Like non-opening doors, liveries and the external modeling of rudders and elevator also do not affect the flight model. 

On 6/19/2023 at 3:59 AM, Dutch727 said:

Every minute I spend on the 310 right now is another minute of delay for the SR-71.

As a satisfied owner of the C310 for MSFS, and several other MilViz products across 3 sims...

for the love of god, PLEASE drop everything except for the SR-71 🙂

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

PLEASE drop everything except for the SR-71 🙂

Didn’t they ? If I am not mistaken, they have announced since FS20 release a Hellcat, a Skyraider and a 732 which seem  abandoned.

11 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Didn’t they ? If I am not mistaken, they have announced since FS20 release a Hellcat, a Skyraider and a 732 which seem  abandoned.

Hellcat? You ARE mistaken - they released their Corsair for MSFS long ago. And it's an excellent rendition!

Let's not forget the also-released, also-excellent, Pilatus PC-6 for MSFS, in land, tundra and amphib & glass & steam cockpits.

recently released are also the MD530 & PA 30.

Their UH-1 has been demo'd in sim, and the T-38C shown in-sim, as well.

Skyraider was already released for P3D, and will come at some point.

732, also another "port" from P3D, is underway.

So, they've released some high quality general purpose addons already, no?

We don't really need any more of the above (ESPECIALLY another tubeliner), because we don't have ANYTHING like the SR-71.

Edited June 21, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta