Sign in to follow this  
nudata

Dornier DO-27 Comments?

Recommended Posts

Given that we are at FSX/SP2 for some number of years, I am looking for precisely the functions modeled in the DO-27. Has anyone used the DO-27 with SP2? Also, any general commentary on this product?At $37(US) it is not too pricey. Its big pluses for me are the damage and wear elements. From the ad-copy they claim to model everything from water in the fuel to the flaps falling off at high speeds. These, to-date, have been almost totally missing in FS aircraft. The amateur pilot could do almost anything to the aircraft and continue on. Sort of made it a cute way to observe the new FSX scenery with little penalty for faulty flying or maintenance. But does it work in SP2 which I have been lucky to adopt without penalty except for time chasing down issues peculiar to my system.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

Share this post


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

Sorry, don't know about SP2 compatibility because I don't have the DO-27 installed right now, mainly because it took away too many fps... But the DO-27 is by far the most realistic GA-plane I have ever flown (before SP2 was released). Indeed the damage and wear elements, and the way you have to repair them, make flying this plane a very entertaining and realistic experience! There is nothing that can compare to this add-on! But right now I am flying with Autogen at Extremely dense, and some more very high settings, which I like a lot. My second best plane (or maybe THIS one comes first!), the RealAir SF260 performs well with these settings, but I am afraid the DO-27 won't. I could give it a try but somehow the damage and wear elements made flying feel too much like working somehow... ;) I also had quite some problems getting it too land well and taxiing was virtually impossible for me... and I like to taxi, to make my flights more realistic. Still, it IS a great plane which will give you a unique experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly the Aerosoft Do-27 using FSX/SP2. There is one small problem with the rear side windows being opaque from the interior view, but it hasn't been more than a small point to deal with. Other than that, it is at the top on my list of aircraft to fly. Very realistic, very immersive in the sim. You simply don't just get in and fly. It takes preparation, and you have to maintain the aircraft and it all just adds to the realism aspect. If you can overlook the side windows at the rear being opaque until the developer comes about with a fix, then I'd highly recommend this aircraft.bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textures are white in SP2 in DX10 mode, which is a shame because DX10 mode is so much faster than DX9 mode on Vista. Oh well, hopefully an upgraded texture model in the FSX SDK is in the works now that Cheyenne is released :)Cheers, Etienne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an excellent aircraft that forces you to follow the checklists or things will break. For example, if you turn the radios on before starting the engine, you can blow a fuse (and make sure you only turn on pitot heat while in flight...). It even models oil splats on the windscreen which appear as your flight progresses.If you haven't already seen it, there's a good video of the FS9 version on YouTube which can be found by searching for "FSX portland jeff greth".Regarding the SP2 window transparecny problems, I believe this patch posted on the Digital Aviation forum fixes this although I haven't tried it yet (but I have used the Do-27 in SP2):http://www.digital-aviation.de/ewpforum/viewtopic.php?t=3870Based on the quality of the Do27, I've more or less decided to buy every FSX aircraft DA produce since their attention to detail is as good as it gets (IMHO).RegardsDavid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To interject a question: Is there a big FPS hit with the DO-27. I realize that is subjective and dependent upon the individualobjectives and their systems.I can get 30 to 60 FPS in rural areas with no AI or Autogen. Other sliders midway. SI have some slack to play with.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I can get 30 to 60 FPS in rural areas with no AI or Autogen.>Other sliders midway. SI have some slack to play with.There is a bit of hit, especially if you increase the engine vibration effects etc (it has its own config panel that you can tweak settings with inside FSX). If you're not flying in a built up area, it's fine but if you go into somewhere like Los Angeles International then it's going to hurt... (but then KLAX hurts anyway).RegardsDavid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another brief question: Like the FPS this is also subjective. For me it is the most important question - is the flight model "reasonably" accurate. I am sure that someone could take the viewable elements add a Cessna air file, with a few tweaks, and I would be none the wiser. Not being a pilot means I need to rely on others who are more sensitive to this area. If the flight characteristics are not good then all you have is a virtual model airplane. Regards and thanks,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>There is a bit of hit, especially if you increase the engine>vibration effects etc (it has its own config panel that you>can tweak settings with inside FSX). If you're not flying in a>built up area, it's fine but if you go into somewhere like Los>Angeles International then it's going to hurt... (but then>KLAX hurts anyway).This is my experience too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Another brief question: Like the FPS this is also subjective.>For me it is the most important question - is the flight model>"reasonably" accurate. I am sure that someone could take the>viewable elements add a Cessna air file, with a few tweaks,>and I would be none the wiser. Not being a pilot means I need>to rely on others who are more sensitive to this area. If the>flight characteristics are not good then all you have is a>virtual model airplane. >>Regards and thanks,>Dick Boley>>A PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yokeFrom what I can tell, the flight model is very unique to this aircraft. It is defiantly not like flying a Cessna in Do-27 clothing.As has already been mentioned, this may be the most overall realistic GA aircraft I have in my hanger, and moreso if you fly it at the most realistic settings, which even includes not seeing prop settings change until the oil is warm enough to accomplish it for you.But, if you are going to fly it like that, it does take time, you must go through the start-up, and fly it, 'by the book', or you will damage something. You actually use the circuit breaker switches, which I wish more designers would do...You also have to adjust the gyro gauges prior to take-off, and regardless, you still may get your instruments and radios failing even if you have done everything correct. That makes for some challenging flights.As far as frame rates, yes, there does seem to be a bit of a hit from the FS9 model, but this model is not a pure FSX model either. I find that most all my FS9 aircraft 'ported', or even reconfigured by the designer and sold as FSX models, do not perform as well as 'pure' FSX models. My Carenado aircraft are that way, always some of the best FR users in FS9, not so much in FSX. There must be a FR hit for using FS9 models in FSX, at least in my experiance.

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