I only fly from the VC as well, have for quite a few years now, and I think the Dakota is one of the best via the VC in my hanger (Eaglesoft, Careando, RealAir, etc). Not sure what consensus you are seeing that makes it 'average'. It is far from 'average' IMO.Perhaps some of the above posters should make sure their global texture is set to 'high quality', as I think the VC is pretty darn sharp.

+1 to what Bert said, the VC is the best part! I don't even use the 2D panel hehe

Well, I have all sliders full right except traffic, auto gen and water. Also disabled ac cast shadows on itself and lens flare disabled. Running 1920x1200 res w/high res 3-d VC checked. Am I missing anything that might things look a little sharper?Willy

"Am I missing anything that might things look a little sharper?"What looks sharp in my eyes may not be sharp in your eyes so you're not missing anything. Running your sliders full right does not make sharp textures. The scenery sliders were never mean't to be placed at full right. Maybe in other games but not in FSX. They are there for individuals to tweak based on their individual computer systems. In fact, my textures are much sharper when most of the sliders are reduced. I let all my video cards and CPU's handle the action and scenery. But I have a high powered system with a 32 inch monitor so perhaps that's why my Dakota is extremely well detailed and runs smoothly in VC and 2D mode? I don't think so because I believe many with lesser systems than mine are having no issues with the Dakota and are getting crisp and clear textures. I really don't know how the Dreamfleet Team can make a better product with today's technology. Jim

Great gauges and GPS, I thought it was pretty clear, but the panel was a disappointment. The gauges, switches and knobs are flat 2D images on a flat panel. Also, if you run SP1, there are texture problems on the exterior which might require you to download a new texture patch. Trouble is this does away with bump mapping so you end up with a shinny smooth airplane that looks more like freeware than what I expected.Overall, I think it flys well and the GPS is fabulous, but visually it needs work.

Just shows we all have different ideas of reality and what we want. I never noticed the lack of 3d switches and knobs in the 3d view and frankly they look a little "hasbro" to me doing the opposite for me-decreasing reality lol.I do notice instruments that not only look exactly like their real world counterparts, and that work exactly like their real world counterparts; but that have ultimate smoothness-which is what is really required to simulate flight imho.. especially ifr.I am running sp2 and I only fly in 3d mode with tracker ir.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

In my experience this is what a typical Ga plane looks like-and since it is total recreation of Lou's own plane it is certainly what it looks like. 30-40 year old planes have many transformations, and many period instruments from different periods!By the way nothing homebuilt there-the faa won't allow it.Anyone ever seen this little doodad to the left of the stormscope in my plane-you hardly every see these? (I don't like it much-and it is a period instrument-but it works fine....hint made by Terra). http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188613.jpg

Agreed geofa.

I'm getting a hard crash with the Dakota. (blue screen). This is on a fresh reinstall of FSX with Vista 32. I do get an event viewer SidebySide error on the rxpdrop.dll. It does seem "unnatural" to shoe horn the 16 bit Garmin Trainer into a 32 bit multi core system. :) I'm wondering if those Vista users flying the Dakota without crashes are running dual or quad cores?Bob..

Dual core with Vista 32 here-but I already had done the permission thing Bill showed in the other thread and have uac turned off...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Back in FS9, the Carenado Dakota was my default aeroplane, so I had high hopes for this one. Now I only fly from the VC, and I also fly online with Vatsim quite a lot. There is an incompatibility between FSInn (the Vatsim client) and Reality XP that means the gauges are all blank in the VC. There is a supposed workaround, but it doesn't work for me, and my post in the DF support forum went unanswered.Consequently, it gets very little use. I haven't asked for my money back, in the hope that there will be a fix (or SB4 gets released), since I would dearly love to be able to fly it.

Any of you guys with vista32 crashes read this thread:http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=182272See if it helps, Also, RE the not-sharp VC, here's a reduced size screen shot and this is what I see, looks quite clear to me. The only thing that isn't (and has been been since FS2004) is the Garmin GNS430

You know, the flat VC is disconcerting. I understand performance is important. I don't want to give up that either. Particularly for IFR.But, chalk it to FSX lack of Processing room for addons, But its sad when we have to compromise like this.I fly only VC too. I felt the same way about Eaglsoft's wonderful twin Comanche. I would have liked a nice 3D VC gauges. Manny

I don't understand the performance reason. Look at the Aerosoft Twin Otter which has only 3d modelled instruments and outperforms even default aircraft.Of course modelling 3d instruments takes a lot more time than flat panels...Alex

I also have the Otter. The instruments are for sure not as smooth or clear to my eyes -and you really can't fly seriously imho that way. I am sure that is some of the penalty for 3d instruments. It is a fun plane though.Again-two different markets/wishes.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/