Cheyenne form FSD versus Cessna from flight1

[Guest gasebah]

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

[Guest]

Get both.

[Guest UweR]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

>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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest gasebah]

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

[Guest]

>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 ... ?

[Guest]

>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

[Guest]

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,

[LAdamson 240]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

>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,

[Guest gasebah]

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