A2A Commanche vs. JF Turbo Arrow (w/ FSRealistic)

[kiwikat 529]

5 minutes ago, Matt Sdeel said:

I thought it demonstrates Accu-sim in P3D?  No?

Hey if you think a 1200 HP fighter with ~10 year old tech will teach you something about the new Comanche, go for it.

[Matchstick 1,902]

The P3D P-40 will show you the attention to detail and quality A2A bring to their planes but obviously it is substantially different to the Comanche so won't give you any kind of feel for how that will fly.

[Reader 2,034]

3 hours ago, Matt Sdeel said:

I thought it demonstrates Accu-sim in P3D?  No?

Yes it does.
Why it is free and why it is not a "demo" has been explained to you in detail.
It seems that it will be between difficult and impossible to convince you that there is not and will not be a "demo" version for you to try.
Don Quixote would be proud of you.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Reader

[bobcat999 8,504]

1 hour ago, Reader said:

Yes it does.
Why it is free and why it is not a "demo" has been explained to you in detail.
It seems that it will be between difficult and impossible to convince you that there is not and will not be a "demo" version for you to try.
Don Quixote would be proud of you.

That's being a bit tough on him I think.  He seemed to be on about experiencing the feel of Accu-sim itself in his last post, not necessarily the Commanche.

"I thought it demonstrates Accu-sim in P3D?  No?"

Lets face it, the aircraft itself is just a shell; it is the Accu-sim part that is clever and makes the difference.

[Reader 2,034]

4 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

That's being a bit tough on him I think. 

Don Quixote won't mind, he's not real.
 

[lwt1971 7,456]

7 hours ago, Matt Sdeel said:

I thought it demonstrates Accu-sim in P3D?  No?

Worth noting that A2A have said multiple times leading up to the MSFS release that the MSFS Accu-Sim is improved/changed a fair bit from the previous version for FSX/P3D, essentially AccuSim V2. But to get a feel for how good their AccuSim based aircraft are one can definitely try them out on P3D.
 

Edited July 20, 2023 by lwt1971

[Bobsk8 12,853]

12 hours ago, Paul K said:

I love the JF Arrow III. I've spent more hours in it than any other MSFS aircraft, and by a huge margin too. I am very much looking forward to Robert Young's mod, but at some point, she will be retired and that's when I'll get the Comanche.

So, to the OP, it looks like the Comanche is the one for you.

 

I bought the JF Arrow when it first came out, flew it for a short time, and was really disappointed in it. I haven't flown in many months. It is not even in the same class as the A2A aircraft I have flown. 

[FakeWayne 84]

The Comanche itself has some unique things about it that don’t fit well into my set up and that’s made me hold off on purchasing it so far.  But admittedly I think I’m just being stubborn and stuck in my ways.

I fly with a Honeycomb Alpha / Bravo set up.  The gear switch as opposed to a typical gear lever, the overhead elevator trim as opposed to a typical wheel / electric yoke switch, the manual flap lever, and the autopilot, all have me hesitant to move out of my comfort zone. Not because I’m scared of something new….but because I’m usually so intent on flying planes that match up realistically well with my setup.

I fly 100% in VR, and I’m using the mouse quite a bit to control things anyway…so I guess I’ll just use it a bit more for controlling this plane than I would with most others I fly.  I don’t mind using the mouse at all in VR.  It doesn’t deter from my experience at all, as I know it does for some people…and if I’m going to fly the plane, I’d rather fly it in all of it’s unique glory, rather than using unrealistic controls that aren’t actually part of the plane. 

Sorry for the long windedness.  I’m just thinking out loud, trying to combat my stubbornness. 

[Dominique_K 10,152]

21 hours ago, Matt Sdeel said:

What would you recommend for the *casual* MSFS user if price is not an issue? And why?

 I don't know what a casual user is.  If you choose to buy and fly MSFS , you have an interest in aviation. A desire to learn. Brownie point !

Then, if I learnt anything on the Internet , it is that convincing somebody is a vain proposition. So I will just shed some light on your question. I do not own the Arrow so I will focus on the Comanche.

 I suppose all the comments and videos on the A2A baby can be a little intimidating 😉.

What is a good simcraft ? it doesn't overwhelm you with tons of manuals about esoteric technical considerations.  Not simplistic either because it gets rapidly boring. It forces you to do things right. Thats it ! Or else... 

What does the Comanche bring to the table ? 

- A good simulation of an aircraft combustion engine at various altitudes. Teaching you how *no*t to blow your engine in mid-air. Useful 😉. Difficult ? Not really as the simcraft has a tool to help. 

- A rudimentary oldish autopilot which teaches you to follow a heading or a beacon or a GPS trajectory. It does not do the navigation job for you, you have to aviate the darn plane,  it does not land your aircraft,  it helps to alleviate the work load. Not the lazy pilot stuff of  today. Oops did I say something wrong 😇?

- the flight modelling is pretty good, as much as I have seen so far . 

The manual that you can download without buying is  good and it offers the best tablet by far that I have seen so far. User-friendly and useful.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Dominique_K

[Dominique_K 10,152]

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

That's being a bit tough on him I think.  He seemed to be on about experiencing the feel of Accu-sim itself in his last post, not necessarily the Commanche.

"I thought it demonstrates Accu-sim in P3D?  No?"

Lets face it, the aircraft itself is just a shell; it is the Accu-sim part that is clever and makes the difference.

The A2A  P-40 was not a demo but an A2A gift during the Covid episode.  I flew her tens of hours in FSX and P3D. She has an old rudimentary Accusim absolutely not representative of what the MSFS Comanche is. Flight modelling wise, the A2A team has done a lot of progress since as well. Their P-51 for instance was already significantly superior.

[jarmstro 2,405]

17 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I don't know what a casual user is. 

I believe that what is meant by 'a casual user' is some one who uses the sim for fun and entertainment? The Comanche is fantastic but I won't be deleting my JF Warrior or Arrows because, well, they are fun to fly and, in the sim, they are just fine for flying from A to B. Who on earth would want to fly the same plane in the sim  again and again and again?  The whole point is to have variety.

Edited July 20, 2023 by jarmstro

[Matt Sdeel 47]

5 hours ago, Matchstick said:

The P3D P-40 will show you the attention to detail and quality A2A bring to their planes but obviously it is substantially different to the Comanche so won't give you any kind of feel for how that will fly.

Yes, exactly. The P-40 demonstrate and can show attention to detail and quality that A2A apparently bring to their planes. I also agree it's old and likely does not represent the new Comanche which is why a new P-40 or something similar with the new Accu-sim might prove helpful to the casual user.

4 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

That's being a bit tough on him I think.  He seemed to be on about experiencing the feel of Accu-sim itself in his last post, not necessarily the Commanche.

"I thought it demonstrates Accu-sim in P3D?  No?"

Let's face it, the aircraft itself is just a shell; it is the Accu-sim part that is clever and makes the difference.

Yes. Accu-sim is probably clever.  It might help to demonstrate why it makes a difference to someone not familiar with A2A. Someone that is not familiar with the P3D universe, A2A, and flight simming generally.

3 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

But to get a feel for how good their AccuSim based aircraft are one can definitely try them out on P3D.

Yes, a "demo" is possible. A demo has been done by A2A in a manner of speaking whether most realized it or not, and a new demo of a new AccuSim will make sense to the casual user.

It's best for someone who mostly eats steak to taste new food (like sashimi or raw fish, like Accu-sim in this case) before bringing their first date to a specialty gourmet restaurant.

4 hours ago, Reader said:

Don Quixote won't mind, he's not real.

Very perceptive. If you think about it, nothing is real. We are all slaves to our senses. More so today in the information age. After all, simming is only about as real as it gets.

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

 I don't know what a casual user is.  If you choose to buy and fly MSFS , you have an interest in aviation. A desire to learn. Brownie point !

Then, if I learnt anything on the Internet, it is that convincing somebody is a vain proposition.

To me, a casual user is one who enjoys owning many planes, has never flown a real GA plane and will likely never pilot one, someone who loves watching beautiful planes and scenery on screen, amazed and admires new tech and how far PCs have come, and buys and collects lots of Carenado planes and plays xBox especially when they go cheap on sale. Like an 'art' collector who never paints herself.

@Matchstick, @bobcat999, @lwt1971 @Reader appreciate the comments. Thank you. You guys are very insightful.

@Dominique_KYou're absolutely right that convincing somebody is a vain proposition.  One can have all the power in the world, endlessly demonstrate miracles, and even offer oneself to die in the cross to prove a point, and yet ... after 2,000 years still have most unconvinced. Human nature I suppose, which is kinda ironic --if you really, really think about it.

 

[Bobsk8 12,853]

32 minutes ago, Matt Sdeel said:

@Dominique_KYou're absolutely right that convincing somebody is a vain proposition.  One can have all the power in the world, endlessly demonstrate miracles, and even offer oneself to die in the cross to prove a point, and yet ... after 2,000 years still have most unconvinced. Human nature I suppose, which is kinda ironic --if you really, really think about it.

 

Some folks have to see for themselves. 

[Stearmandriver 2,332]

On 7/19/2023 at 10:40 AM, kkbelos said:

I am curious, what makes it so special? I mean, what are the main differences vs the JF planes or the Milviz C310?

I'll weigh in on this, after several flights in the Comanche (and as someone who greatly enjoys the 310).

First, the flight model.  A2A has, basically, created a new simulator here.  Sure, much of the flight regime in MSFS feels quite good - better than we've had before in a sim - but there are problem areas.  Take crosswind effects, for example: in all other MSFS aircraft, a 10 knot crosswind component feels like about 25kts.  You can land in a sideslip with the longitudinal axis aligned with centerline, upwind wing low to prevent drift etc... You can do this perfectly, and on touchdown weird things still happen in every plane I've previously used in MSFS.  The plane lurches or slides sideways, the nose yaws around, there's an extreme tendency to not only weathervane but drift INTO the crosswind etc.

The Comanche does none of this.  10kts of crosswind feels like 10kts, and if you touch down straight with no drift, nothing weird happens.  You simply touch down on upwind main, downwind main, and nose gear, rolling straight all the while, and weathervaning is easily controllable with aileron into the wind as it should be.

It's like you're NOT flying MSFS; the quirks aren't there.  In THIS simulator, the plane behaves like it should!

Of course every other aspect of the flight model is great too.  Stall / spin physics are phenomenal, and the fact that they spent time on something that the airplane isn't even certified to do speaks volumes about attention to detail.

And then there's the engine and systems modeling.  Previously, when using sim aircraft that had implemented versions of engine or systems management ("do it this way or there will be this consequence") I always found myself getting annoyed at it.  It just felt... hokey.  The comparison that comes to mind is the "uncanny valley" effect; that disproportionate negative reaction most people have to seeing a humanoid representation (CGI etc.) that is close to human but not right.  That's how other attempts at engine or systems management in the sim felt to me - I would find myself getting really annoyed at it because I could see what they were going for, but it wasn't RIGHT.  It was too scripted or too binary or there was too obvious of a step between "condition A" and "condition B" etc... I'd have preferred that the dev didn't try to implement it at all because it was just jarring, more "immersion breaking" to use the buzzword than if this kind of thing just hadn't been modeled at all.  Basically, it was a constant reminder that the thing you were operating didn't really feel like an airplane.

A2A has broken through the "uncanny valley" of systems and engine management.  Their rendition feels natural.  I find myself reflexively doing the things I'd do to manage a big bore Continental engine in reality, and the sim responds appropriately and NATURALLY.  As an example, I've done a lot of intentionally fouling spark plugs so I can do a lean runup to clean them off and see how it works.  Fouling occurs a little differently, to a different magnitude, every time.  The lean runup works but takes a little different time every time, and importantly: the fouling isn't just an on/off flag, "now you have fouled plugs / now you don't".  It actually WORKS.

Those are just a couple examples but the whole plane is like that.  Oh, the instruments!  Hand flying instrument approaches is an absolute pleasure; the needles are 100% smooth, there's no ticking at ALL.  That seems like it should be simpler, but other devs seem to struggle with it...

Ultimately, I'm coming to the conclusion that this plane, in this sim, represents nothing less than a new level of GA sim experience.  Given that no true high-fidelity GA simulation devices exist (there are no level C or D Comanche boxes out there), I actually think the claim can be made that this is the most accurate, natural simulation of a general aviation aircraft that has ever been created. On any platform, not just limited to a desktop sim.

I get that this may sound fan-boyish but I'm objectively serious.  It's an entirely new level.

And for "casual" simmers?  I mean we're all here for fun so I'm not sure what the difference might be, but I think this plane is for everyone.  I mean, it's not hard to learn to fly a Comanche, and everyone will enjoy the flight dynamics from the get go.  Interfacing with aircraft options is extremely simple via their tablet. There's nothing to be intimidated about.

I mean, it's really that good.  I don't understand what they've done.  They should just build their own sim.  😁

 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

Generally when a new aircraft appears in MSFS the reactions are somewhat similar to Statler and Waldorf in the Muppet Show.  Initially lots of compliments and praise and talk about how great it is, followed by a period of well it is OK and dropping off to a final stage where people just complain about the faults. Examples of this include the 247D and the CRJ.

It will be very interesting to see if the Comanche can buck this trend.