Sign in to follow this  
Jay R

Cheyenne form FSD versus Cessna from flight1

Recommended Posts

Hi y'all,I already have the Cheyenne from FSD as turboprop. Is the Cessna 412 from flight1 still worth buying then??Thx,Alex

Share this post


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

Hi Alex, Andrew Herd at flightsim.com wrote an extremely favourable review of the C421, seems like we indeed need both :-)Best Regards, Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the plane but... I would love to see the gauge clarity in the VC improved. I compared to the Cheyenne and DF's new piper. Both have a noticeable greater clarity. Since I spend 90% of my time in the VC, this was the first thing I looked at. I am not a gauge developer but I would like to know why there is a difference in clarity between them. Is it that different tools were used to create the VC? All in all I am enjoying the plane and I do wish to thank the developers for an overall beautiful job. Thank you.RegardsBobG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi Alex, Andrew Herd at flightsim.com wrote an extremely >favourable review of the C421, seems like we indeed need >both :-) I've noticed Mr. Herd has been giving almost everything a good review lately, so I'm a little weary to listen to him.And for the question, I do own the Cheyenne, and I can say its 100% worth the money, and the 421 looks pretty nice too.Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny you should bring this up as I bought 2 planes yesterday... the Cheyenne and the 421. I was looking for something with a nicer virtual cockpit than the built in Cessna Caravan and/or the Beechacrafts.I love both of them and each has its merits. As already mentioned above, the gauges on the Cheyenne are easier to read, but I find that the 421 is a little more refined looking. They both have a similar feel in the air and roughly the same amount of power.After just a few tests, it seems that the 421 is a little easier on frame rates. Not sure how the heck they did it with not just a virtual cockpit, but an entire virtual interior.In the long run I'm probably going to be flying the 421 more than the Cheyenne just because I can almost trick myself into thinking I'm in a real plane when I'm in it.You're right in thinking that they both fill the same niche, but the 421 has to be flown to be believed.Not really an answer to your question. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different beasts, different kind of flying.C412 is lower and slower, more suited for recreational flying and short distance corporate jobs. Cheyenne is really a small commuter, good long range corporate aircraft or corporate charter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx fr all ur opinions.Buy the way I agree with Scott. Mr. Herd is very favourable to any new product. Well here is what I think after reading your appreciated comments:I guess I will wait for dreamfleet to release a turboprop before I buy another one. Because I think that the Piper is by far better than the Cheyenne. I know you cannot compare the two as planes.But you can compare the work.So if the Cessna is not definitly better than the Cheyenne I will stick with Cheyenne a little longer.Thx fr all ur comments. Helped to make up my mind.Rgds,Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I've noticed Mr. Herd has been giving almost everything a good review lately, so I'm a little weary to listen to him.Have you considered it's because Andrew chooses not to waste his time reviewing shovelware ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Have you considered it's because Andrew chooses not to waste >his time reviewing shovelware ... ? Well, yes, granted what he reviews isn't generally part of the crap category (usually far from it), but from what I read in his reviews it seems as though he ignores any downfalls at all. No matter how great an aircraft is its always going to have one or two minor downfalls, but it seems like they're ignored in his reviews.Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VC seems very clear to me... but it can be sharpened even more at the risk of a small framerate hit in VC mode.In the panel config under "Virtual Cockpit", sections 1 through 3, change the "pixel size" entry from 512,512 to 1024,1024.pixel_size=512,512 This can be changed to 1024,1024.Backup your old panel.cfg before making any changes.This will quadruple the VC gauge resolution.I have left mine at the installed 512,512 setting.Andrew Herd is a relentless tester and pulls no punches when he finds a problem or overlooked area during the review process. If we're fortunate and he tells us about it, we fix it :)1% of users have reported some problem with the GPS. That's too many and we are sorting it out.As far as entering discussion on the Cheyenne vs C421, I wouldn't touch that with a long pole. The Cheyenne is a wonderful plane, and I even had an itsy bitsy infinitesimal contribution to that project :)Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. As I mentioned elsewhere, the slight fuzziness of the default gauges didn't seem that bad at all to start with. IMO, the whole effect of the virtual panel is one of the best I've yet run into. I really do like this aircraft!!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I've just answered your post on the other board. Thanks :)Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>As far as entering discussion on the Cheyenne vs C421, I >wouldn't touch that with a long pole. The Cheyenne is a >wonderful plane, and I even had an itsy bitsy infinitesimal >contribution to that project :) For the record ... I'd like to address something users don't seem to have commented on here.First, comparing projects is always difficult as time marches onwards more techniques are developed. Three months is a long time in FS design. The winners are the consumers because they get increasing sophistication. Who knows what will the evolutionary standard will be in September ... ?All twin engine a/c that both Roger and FSD produce behave as true multi-engine aircraft should. An earth-bound soul would not realise that normal twins do not exhibit the abnormal behavioural traits MS believe they do (??) and any qualified driver will immediately tell you exactly the same thing. MS blew m/e a/c behaviour in FS2002.To fix these behavioural problems (which are hardwired in FS2002) has meant a lot of lateral thinking, that - and the combining a number of different individuals' skill sets and approaches to programming that FS does not theoretically support. To get the results we do, Roger plays far more than the passing role he owns up to. RD was the key to making this all happen and despite what his ugly cigar-chompin' image might infer he is neither an ogre or a dummy :-lolFolks who do know m/e aircraft will immediately recognise what we have achieved in these designs once they have flown them and compared them to the King Air and Baron (which, by the way, can never be fixed). There are NO other prop engined a/c produced for FS by ANY design groups (or individuals) that incoroprate these innovations because the techniques needed to work seamlessly are integrated throughout every component of the a/c, and (unlike airfiles) these techniques can't functionally be used in isolation. Innovation, and life at the pointy end of FS design, is technically very satisfying. But it's also fun - or we wouldn't be doing it at all ! Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Steve,just wanted to say that the Cheyenne is a great plane and I have a lot of fun flying it. That was why I bought it in the first place. However as you say time moves on, and it is in the natue of the human being that we want improvement.When I got FS2002 I was enthusiastic. But when I compare FS2002 in default condition and what I am looking at now with all the improvements and add-ons it is a different sim. Would I get the default FS2002 now I would sure be a little dissapointed. So far the Cheyenne has not been beaten as a turboprop in my opinion what is a great achievement considered that it has been out there quite a while.Rgds,Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL "pointy end of FS design"The pointy end of FS design is usually aimed at my rump as I desperately run, trying not to be skewered by it :DBest,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>In the panel config under "Virtual Cockpit", sections >1 through 3, change the "pixel size" entry from >512,512 to 1024,1024. >>pixel_size=512,512 This can be changed to >1024,1024. RogerDoes this work with any FS2K2 VC?ThanksDavid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the alternative panel config already modified for the 421, but be sure to back up your old one first. http://www.the-hangar.net/panel.zipWill changing the gauge's pixel size work with any VC? Yes, but I wouldn't recommend trying it without making sure you backup your old one before experimenting.It absolutely will not work for any 3Dfx video card that is of the 3500 series or older. The changes have had no effect on my frame rate, but experience has taught me that it can.Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RogerThanks for the quick reply; I'll definitelly be playing with this. Oh, and don't worry, I always back up these kind of files before I mess with them.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alex While I don't own the Cheyenne I did just buy the 421, and already own Dreamfleet's Archer. I think that the new 421 is truely a great flyer, probably the best I've flown, however, I'm not too crazy about the way they set up the cockpit. I fly for a living, so when I get into a sim I'm doing it to knock the rust off of some things that I don't do very often in the real world, but at anytime could be forced to do. For some unknown reason, Flight 1 chose not to install a ADF, which totally amazes me. While the NDB approaches are not the latest and greatest thing, they are still used every day in the US, and I assume the rest of the world. Many airports only have NDB approaches. In the freight hauling business you had better be good at flying these things lest you end up in some farmers field. That all being said I still think its a great plane but to be honest I'll be asking for a refund if the patch doesn't have a new gauge in it. As far as the panel goes, I'm only 36 and don't need glasses yet, or I didn't think I did until I started squinting trying to read the gauges, not very realistic. Best thing to do in my opinion is try it and if you like it great, and if you don't ask for a refund. Works at Walmart. Bryan Bjorkman CFI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't agree on the ADF issue. As far as I'm concerned, a modern day moving map GPS will get you into some tough NDB approach areas much more safely than a ADF. In general, ADF's are redicously expensive for what they do. GPS's still show the NDB location & provide far better situational awareness at the same time. It's no wonder that ADF's are getting eliminated in cockpits all the time. Even realitive cheap handheld GPS's with moving map data bases, will keep you out of that "farmers field" much more easily, not to mention mountain ranges, restricted airspace, etc.!! With a couple of Garmin 530's aboard, I wouldn't even think ADF's.As to the guages, I'm using a 22" monitor in 1600*1200*32 resolution. They were easy enough to read as it was, but I changed the panel configuration to 1024,1024 as suggested by Roger Dial for the VC panel. The gauges are now as super clear as any!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bryan,We'll take your ADF concern into consideration... I see that Jim has already answered that though.Regarding the panel and/or VC gauges, I think the VC gauges are very legible as demonstrated in the accompanying screenshot.We recognize the 2D panel gauges are not large enough for everyone's taste or eyesight and have made various popups for them as well in the 2D panel that can also be seen in the accompanying link.Left click on the HSI to bring up the 6 primaries. Left click on the other gauges to bring up individual or groups of gauges.Try it for awhile. I hope you'll come to like it.http://www.the-hangar.net/gauges.htmBest,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can answer your question.The plane that is modeled 3968G is one that I fly regularly and we modeled this panel exactly. There really is no need for an for an ADF in a complex panel such as this one with the "Garmin Style" avionics.This style GPS with overlays will get you into any NDB spec'ed field way better than any ADF could ever do. Of the 3-4 twins that I fly, not one of them has an ADF reciever. I even took the one out of my personal plane. Ok enough of that. This does not help you if what you really wanted was an ADF reciever for your own tastes. You could replace one the gauges by hand or with a program like FS panel Studio but there are no plans for us to add an ADF to the Golden Eagle.And of course as always, if you are dissatisfied with any of our products, we will make it right with you and you will need to make contact through the customer service page at Flight1.com for assistance.Regards,Jim RhoadsFlight1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO.....Both of these planes are truly excellent. I enjoy flying the Cheyenne alot. Of course now that the Cessna 421 is out, I absolutely had to get it because I used to fly the Cessna 402 b and c models, and this is closest to those aircraft yet. It brings back great memories!!But as far as which one is better or worth more. I'll say this, whichever one you decide to go for, you WILL NOT be dissapointed at all in either. I have both and enjoy flying them equally as much.They each fill a desired need in the most enjoyable part of aviation, GENERAL AVIATION!!! I know I was no help, sorry bout that!!Laterhttp://www.forefrontgrp.com/jayssig.jpg"There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies Mr. Adamson and Mr. Dial Just to let you both know, I'm not trying to make waves here. I think the airplane is great. As we all know, your never going to make everyone happy, just ask God. While I do agree with Mr. Adamson's view that GPS's are far superior to ADF's, not everyone's 421 has one. I guess from where I'm sitting I don't see why they left the ADF out, maybe its a complicated thing to put in, I'm certainly not a programer, but if you go down to your local airport I'll bet you that at least nine out of ten 421's have a ADF, or more likely an RMI in them. Don't you think? I'm planning on bumping up my little 17 in. moniter to something bigger, but for now this will have to do. Mr. Dial, You people have done a tremendous job, and I certainly don't want to berate it. The squinting that I was referring to was in the 2d panel not the VC, and while I do enjoy flying the VC more than the 2d, I'm unable to do this in the dark. I have my lighting maxed out, but unfortunatly on my machine its like trying to find the bathroom without waking my wife up. ie, dark and I tend to bump into things. I have read the manual and know about enlargeing the gauges, I personally (this is my opinion) would rather have a little bigger gauges instead of 6 great big ones. The planes I instruct in usually don't have GPS's, and I've always been a stickler with my students that they know how to fly a NDB approach as good as me before their checkride (probably because I screwed mine up on my instrument checkride years ago) Now I realize this is no trainer, but when I used to fly 421's I didn't have a fancy GPS, heck I was lucky if my AI's backlight worked half the time, I guess that's the life of a freight dog. You know, I guess this always just comes down to value. A person will be happy everytime no matter what the price if he thinks he got what he paid for. Bryan Bjorkman

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