pilottj

Isn't that the point tho? Different strokes for different folks. We shouldn't expect Carenado to be like RealAir or RealAir be like A2A....they are all who they are, they all offer different styles of simulation experience for us to enjoy. The thing with this thread tho, is that A2A is our GA/Warbird 'PMDG' in the sense that A2A's mission is to constantly push the boundries of flight simulation sophistication and realism. That is what they do, and that is what they will continue do because they have a large following who has come to expect that from them. Asking A2A to not be as realistic or to stop pushing the boundries is like asking PMDG to stop making highly detailed airliners, or asking another developer to stop doing what they do well. Just remember if no one pushed the boundries in flightsim development, we would be still flying little more than default airplanes with default scenery. If you prefer another developer's style to A2A's style, thats awesome, continue to encourage and support your favorite developers. I like a lot of other developers too and support them as well. I am just happy that there is that so much choice available between simple fun all the way to hardcore checkride training available to all of us. If A2A was the ONLY developer making addon airplanes for FS, and they only made highly detailed addons as they do now.....and there were no OTHER options, then this idea of them making things too realistic might be valid. However there are many other choices. Likewise, imagine if Carenado was the only addon developer for FS....can you imagine the FS hobby lasting very long? This hobby will not survive if there is only one extreme or the other. The fact that addons are still being made and sold for a 10 year old flight sim engine is due to the availablity of such a wide range in choices (including the extremes) of different strokes for different folks. We should be so lucky, other hobbies like this basically only have one or two content developers, or their development engine is so limited that there is little variety, so their fans are basically stuck with what they get. My advice is be grateful for the choices we do have in this hobby. Maybe it's kind of like the whole Star Trek franchise....You can't expect TOS to be like TNG to be like DS9 to be like VOY, the movies...etc...they are all supposed to be different...appealing to different groups of fans. As such, you will have a boatload of differring opinions on which one is the best...but the franchise would be pretty boring if they were all the same. Having choices in a sci fi franchise or a flight sim hobby is pretty dang nice. Cheers TJ

I am with SD, there are CHOICES in the FS world...many choices. Complaining to A2A and PMDG that their addons are too complex is no different than the people who go on to the Carenado board and complain about how simple or unrealistic their planes are. They make what they make, they have a demographic to sell to and they obviously sell alot, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Likewise A2A and PMDG obviously sell enough of their style of addons for them to justify making more. If you aren't into what A2A/PMDG makes...simple, don't buy their stuff. There are developers who post on this very forum who make the kinds of addons that are right up your alley. Support them, so they are encouraged to make more of what you like, instead of complaining to the developers who don't make what you like or going on to release threads of addons you know you are not into. Cheers TJ

I think you have to remember too, is why the real life T-6 was built in the first place. It is a trainer...a plane designed for educating pilots. A2A chose that T-6 project for much of the same reason, to educate us virtual pilots. So for that reason, everything should be as realistic and detailed as possible. If A2A made cars, the T-6 is like a an old stickshift car that you would teach a rich kid to drive before he gets into a Ferrari or whatever. I would imagine if A2A's cars were used for teaching purposes, you would want them to be very realistic, especially if your kid wants to drive powerful sports cars afterwards. If you like planes that are 'get in n go' without checklists, without having to worry about temps and fluid levels, thats great. There is a wide range of great addons with varying levels of system depth/realism from lots of great developers that fill that boat. Lets face it, the Airliner guys who want full on detail and hardcore simulation have PMDG to choose from. The airliner guys who don't care about the hardcore details as much, have Aerosoft, Milviz, Capt Sim, CLS...etc...ie varying balances of fun/realism. We, who are fans of GAs and Warbirds can enjoy that same variety. A2A is our 'PMDG' of GA and Warbirds if you will. They are here for us who love that super detail and challenge of mastering those beasts or to 'checkride' ourselves. If you don't care for that kind of simulation, thats great, nothing wrong with that. The FS hobby is a big place with something for everyone.

it has a supercharger, so take it up to 12k, set high cruise settings, and let it cruise...and hopefully it will get O2 later so you can take it up even higher. Remember indicating 145 mph at 12k is roughtly 160kts true airspeed. All in all a fantastic airplane that makes you work, and gives you feedback as to your skills or lack of. The T-6 will reward you and humble you lol. Master the T-6 and anything else you fly will become easier or you will be more skilled at. A simple AP to give your arm a break during cruise. A CDI with RXP/GTN capability to fly all IAPs...by hand of course, and with such a nice stable flying airplane, I wouldn't expect any different lol. then you get to land and try not to groundloop lol. Cheers TJ

Awesome news from A2A! Way to do a bird that should appeal to both Warbird fans and GA pilots. It does have an AP, but looks to be a simple one ala the CHerokee...as it should be. The T-6 begs to be flown with your hands and feet. Looks like there is room for the RXP430 or GTN650. The RXP530 'might' fit. We shall see. Anyway, I can't wait to shoot IAPs down to minimums in the 'Six'. The RealAir Legacy V2 is absolute awesome and I love it, but I find it very easy to fly. I am very much looking forward to the challenge of the T-6. I think you guys are going to be waiting quite a while for the Accusim Aerostar. Remember we have to 'teach' people to fly twins first. Look for the Seminole to be the first A2A GA Twin. If we value A2A for their 'realisim' then we should also value the realisim in training progression. I mean whats the point of A2A making the effort for high level R&D to make very realistic simulations if we ourselves don't take the time and learn to fly their projects at an equally high 'checkride' level. Thats why the trainers are so awesome, they force you to 'up your game' so to speak, like this T-6 will. I know A2A made fast warbirds beforehand, but I bet if they were to do it again, they would have started out the T-6 before going to the fighters. Look at it this way, if you master the T-6, your handling of the Mustang will become much better. A2A used their Comanche to transport them and their equipment to other airports for their research of the 172, Cherokee, 182. This allowed them to wisely reserch two projects at once really. Likewise I bet A2A is using the Aerostar for their transportation to other project locations, all the while gathering Aerostar research as they go. I believe the Aerostar will eventually be accusimed most likely, but remember why they got it in the first place :smile: Cheers TJ

I agree with Ron, there seems to be this assumption that if a plane has fancy glass electronics, it must be flown on the AP and using an entered flight plan. Glass/GTN offers flexibility, meaning flying by flight plan is one option of many. For the sake of of currency, (remembering how to do stuff), its a good idea to practice the other methods of navigation too. Use good ol VOR navigation now and then or shoot an NDB approach (if you can find one lol), its great practice. If you are pressed for time, enter the first few waypoints in the flight plan, or use VOR for the first few legs, then enter the rest of the plan enroute. As to the OP's request, the Citation Mustang is fantastic albiet a little frame heavy. If you don't mind props, the A2A Civil P-51 Mustang pretty much as fast as the Citation Mustang, with the added benifit of enjoying beautiful Packard Merlin engine sounds, it will keep you on your toes tho. Another great prop choice for those kinds of 500-1500nm trips is the Turbine Duke. ESDG and Milviz have some real beauties in the works too. You could also slap on one of the many fine BBJ paints to the NGX and haul it around as a Bizjet. Altho you won't have BBJ range, just schedule a few extra fuel stops. Cheers TJ

Comparing a Comanche to a Cherokee is like comparing a Ford Mustang to a Ford Focus. The Comanche is a muscle car while the Cherokee is an economy sedan. They do share some common features such as same Autopilot, and similar style of vintage Piper styling, but the Comanche is a different animal. Like the Cherokee, it is very enjoyable to fly, very easy to fly by hand, tho requrires a little more planning ahead. The 172 and 182 are a little more similar but still like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Toyota 4WD crossover. The B-17 is also a fantastic simulation, it is quite a bit different than COTS, only similar that it is 4 engine radial. You might like the fighters too, they are the thorobreds of airplanes, pure power and seat of the pants flying. The Civil Mustang is THE fastest civil GA addon available. Its a handful to fly, but very rewarding when you master the Mustang. It will be getting a GTN650 in an update soon, so I think it will be king of the GA pistons again. I recommend them all, each are different experiences. Cheers TJ

Oh yes I understand, the Duke and it's Turbine sibling are wonderful planes to fly for sure, but they are not the easiest planes to paint. Not only is it a complicated shape, its got a lot of duplicative textures. Even changing the registration on a scheme required changing Fuselage main/alpha, Fuselage Oil main/alpha, spec file main/alpa, wing underside main/alpha, wing underside oil main/alpha, wing spec/alpha, panel day/night...lol. I made some blank textures for the Turbine Duke V2 that could be layered into the P Duke V2 kit, however the hangup is not having layered oil textures for the nacelles which has kept me from doing more T Duke paints. There are some fantastic Piston schemes that I would love to convert to Turbine, but can't do much with the nacelles until I can get layered oil stains lol. Cheers TJ

Great job Ron! You know, that one might not look too bad with a pair of PT-6s hanging on it : :smile: Cheers TJ

Live Long, and Prosper :Big Grin:

Take your time and do it right guys, there are plenty of great addons to fly now. Cheers TJ

I agree, the ASI is the single most important gauge in the airplane. Give me a J-3 Cub on a VFR day over familiar countryside, and if I can only have one instrument, it is the ASI. All other flight info I can get visually from looking outside or with my ears. Obviously the others are imporant too and should be used. What is relatively 'unimportant' tho is the units on the ASI. They could be in Kts, MPH, KPH, M/S, Donuts per hour...whatever. I think a lot of simmers see the ASI as some kind of performance gauge of 'how fast am I going', when it is really just a pressure gauge for precise aircraft operation, and keeping the airplane within safety limits. In this sense, the ASI is treated like an engine gauge, you memoryize and fly by the numbers and colored arcs, keep it within tolerances...etc. As such, the units are unimportant as long as you know the numbers and limits. You don't use the ASI for tracking your flight plan progress, you use the CAS ring on the ASI + winds aloft data, DME readout, info from a GPS, or calculations from an E6B, Flight computer...etc. to see 'how fast are you going'. For instance, changing the ASI in a 1950s airplane from MPH to KTS is kind of like changing the British style 'Boost' gauge in a Spitfire to a typical American style In Hg manifold gauge. Yes it would tell you the same info, but the boost gauge is what Spitfires were flown with, and what the POH charts are calibrated to. Do simmers want it realisitic or easy? :smile: Cheers TJ

Any of you who are pilots or are taking flying lessons have probably heard the phrase 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate' when describing what a pilot does. This really applies on how we deal with emergencies, the priority of actions to take. Anyway, it can be said that while we do all 3 of these things when we fly. we might find ourselves focusing more on one or the other. Aviate: The act of flying the plane, keeping it withing limitations, monitoring systems, ensuring their safe operation. Navigate: Doing a task with the plane....ie going somewhere or performing a task, or mission. Using the instruments and equipment to perform this task. Communicate: Telling or signalling to others where you are or what your intentions are. I think tho in the virtual world of FSX with no consequnces, while we do all three, we focus might more on one or the other depending on what and how we are flying. What aspect of this flying do you enjoy the most? Obviously in reality we as pilots need to be able to perform all three instinctually, but which do you find yourself doing the most in FS? ie, if you like to fly warbirds, aerobatics, ultralights...ie more recreational stuff, I bet your focus is more on the 'Aviate' side of things. if you fly Airliners, GAs[A-B], Military....etc. I bet you are focused more on the 'navigate' side of things. If you like to be on Vatsim, you obviously like the 'communicate' side of things. We could even get into which flight instruments are more 'aviate', 'navigate' based, or 'communicate' based. I think this is why some feel an ASI in knots is important, and why some feel it is unimportant, it depends on what aspect of flying you think the gauge is primarily for. Anyway, just curious. Cheers TJ

Great paint Ron Great pic Ryan :smile: Cheers TJ

Hey Rock, I also did a conversion for N2060V which is like the one in your photo. It's on the library too. Cheers TJ