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

[Scott - A2A 164]

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

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.  😁

 

Wow Stearmandriver, you get it. The advantage of making an engine from the inside out is we can do things like spark plug fouling and clearing.  It’s all organic and just a load of things running at the same time.  Just like a real combustion engine, it’s mind blowing it even works.

Also agreed 100%, real is fun.  Heck, watch a toddler play in a puddle.  People love physics and they don't even know it.  We just made it as real as we could while making it approachable as we could.  There is no "argh!  read the manual!" attitude.  Casual simmers are welcome.

Scott

Edited July 21, 2023 by Scott - A2A

[Bobsk8 12,959]

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

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.

 

Nothing like a real positive comment...😝

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

18 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Nothing like a real positive comment...😝

Perhaps I should have said " Ï am hopeful the Comanche can buck this trend".   😄 

[Reader 2,037]

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Perhaps I should have said " Ï am hopeful the Comanche can buck this trend".   😄 

The other option was to say nothing, or even something good.
Every now and then, something that is simply stunning happens and it just did. 

[Adamski_NZ 976]

Just to add my view to the overwhelming tide of Comanche posts ...

... it oozes detail on so many levels, yet is highly configurable, so if you just want a simple no-nonsense experience, you can turn a lot of the doodads off and enjoy the superb visuals and related detail.

However - if you dig a little deeper - and watch some of Scott's YT videos (eg. about cruising/mixture settings) you'll realise there's a lot more you can do with it.

It's *by far* the most complex but most rewarding GA aircraft in MSFS ... period.

[bobcat999 8,547]

I am glad I bought it for sure.  Much enjoyment.   

As a simmer I am kind of on the middle ground.  I like a quick casual flight just for the sensation of flying and enjoying the scenery, but I will dig a little deeper when the mood takes me.
This plane works for me all round in that respect! 

I thought the price was a bit steep at first at $50, but it works out to about £37 for me, and I am happy with what I have for the price.

I will certainly look at their next release.  Anyone know what it is likely to be?

[Matchstick 1,925]

7 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I thought the price was a bit steep at first at $50, but it works out to about £37 for me, and I am happy with what I have for the price.

I will certainly look at their next release.  Anyone know what it is likely to be?

Don't forget you've earn $5 worth of discount from your next A2A purchase as well.

And as for the next plane, everyone (including me) seems to have their own particular favourite they hope to see but I don't there are any details yet and frankly whatever it is I can't imagine not buying it.

[Dominique_K 10,156]

36 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

 

I will certainly look at their next release.  Anyone know what it is likely to be?

Nope.

This kind of comment generally unleashes a 12-page thread 😆. My favorite would be the Texan T-6 which was a P3D gem. I love taildraggers (nothing like the feeling of having the nose lowers down and seeing the runway !) , the bird has a great canopy well adapted to MSFS scenery and a big engine. Second best would the P-51 civ..

I am afraid they will play it safe though with a C172 (meh...) or a Skylane. Maybe the V-tail Bonanza ?

[bobcat999 8,547]

26 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Nope.

This kind of comment generally unleashes a 12-page thread 😆. My favorite would be the Texan T-6 which was a P3D gem. I love taildraggers (nothing like the feeling of having the nose lowers down and seeing the runway !) , the bird has a great canopy well adapted to MSFS scenery and a big engine. Second best would the P-51 civ..

I am afraid they will play it safe though with a C172 (meh...) or a Skylane. Maybe the V-tail Bonanza ?

I hope it is the T-6 as well.  Something a bit different.

[Bobsk8 12,959]

1 minute ago, bobcat999 said:

I hope it is the T-6 as well.  Something a bit different.

Took me months to get landing that T6 in a gusty crosswind, fairly good.

[kkbelos 66]

18 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

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.  😁

 

Thanks for taking the time to write a thorough answer, I think I understand now where all the buzz is coming from!

[sd_flyer 6,119]

I'm not sure about you guys but for me A2A Comanche is like MSFS2024 has been released already with improve physics and cockpit interaction ! 🙂

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

On 7/20/2023 at 3:09 PM, jarmstro said:

The whole point is to have variety.

That statement is what a casual user may indeed say - the more serious simmer would probably say the whole point is to have accuracy of systems and flight model. 

I too have enjoyed the JF PA28's, but not after experiencing the latest version of AccuSim with the Commanche.  The JF flight models now seem 'old' and less satisfying.  I too enjoy variety, but only with 'study level' aircraft.  I would say a casual user is only interested in having a certain aircraft in the sim, regardless the level of accuracy in systems or flight model.

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by MrBitstFlyer

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

10 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I will certainly look at their next release.  Anyone know what it is likely to be?

A2A know. 🙂

[Matchstick 1,925]

43 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

A2A know. 🙂

If they are working on multiple planes simultaneously they might not even know what will be ready first 🙂