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

Glad you like it. Yeah the T Duke is a fantastic airplane but not an easy plane to paint, not only is it a challenging shape, the lack of an offical paint kit makes areas around the nacelles tricky, especially with the oil splattered textures. With Sean Young's help, I was able to create a blank series and uploaded it. You can use it in conjunction with the Pistion Duke v2 kit. If you cut out the nacelle sections from the T Duke blanks, then layer them into the P Duke paint kit, you have a makeshift paint kit for the T Duke v2. Again the problem is with lack of layered nacelle textures, it is difficult to paint the nacelles with an oil splatter overlay. Hopefully Sean can release an official T Dukev2 kit sometime. Cheers TJ

yeah, I understand A GPS is a very complicated piece of equipment. The most important thing you can do as a pilot is to learn how to fly without it, before taking on a GPS. Its kind of like learning to drive, the best thing you can do to teach a someone to drive, is stick them in an old manual shift car at an empty parking lot and let them learn how to control momentum on their own. You don't want to stick them in a car that does everything for them, otherwise they won't learn as much. These great A2A and RealAir planes can teach alot if you let them. Cheers TJ

Great shots man I did that paint some time ago, you can find it here on the Avsim library, just look up N1029G. Cheers TJ

Being able to enter and modify a flight plan on the fly like a real GPS is a huge advantage, not to mention other features like the OBS function not simulated with the default. Thats the main point of having a GPS. I wouldn't ride in an airplane in which the flight plan was locked into the plane and i couldn't do anything with it during the flight. I am sure Ryan can tell you as a traffic controller, he wouldn't want any pilot to be locked onto a pre determined flight plan either lol. The famous words 'Ready to copy clearance'...weather, traffic, terrain, TFRs, emergencies, sight seeing....etc all good reasons to be able to modify a flight plan enroute. If all you do is hit 'Direct To' you are only using a small portion of the GPS functionality. It has loads of useful flight data to give you. Cheers TJ

I think only the 182 allows for both in the same plane. As for which one to use, it depends on what kind of a flyer you are. If you like moving maps and magenta lines, the 750 is for you. If you prefer more numerical data, then the 650 is great. If you already have the 750, I wouldn't get the 650 unless you need the extra bit, unless you want both for future flexibility. Some aircraft VCs will be better suited for the 650....ala Civil P-51, AT-6, RealAir Scout v2(if this ever comes to light) I have both and find each has it's merits depending on the plane. Personally I find a single 650 in the A2A GA types (eventually Civil P-51 as well) to be a perfect fit for me, as I find numerical data w CDI more useful than a moving map with magenta line. I find the 750 really shines in the Turbine Duke, where things happen very quickly, and the ability to quickly change the flight plan on the fly is very vauable. I know I am in the minority here but if it weren't for the Turbine Duke, I probably would have returned the 750 and kept the 650. The 650 really is a greatly underrated tool, it provides all the nesessary data for GPS flying, yet is compact and not distracting when the pilot's primary focous should be outside or on the 'six pack' Cheers TJ

I live near Travis AFB, which is home to C-5s, C-17s and KC-10s. The older C-5Bs are being phased out in favor of the newly engined C-5Ms. I am going to miss the old C-5s, nothing else sounded like them with their TF-39s, now they have been re-equipped with CF6s, and now sound like every other CF6 powered jet. A C-5B departure. Cheers TJ

The Cherokee is excellent for a first timer, yes, the AP is simple, basically just good for giving your arm a break during cruise. Simple AP is a great thing, you have to actually fly the plane. The Cherokee is very easy to fly by hand, I can fly approaches by hand down to minimums all day in it. You aren't going to learn as much if the AP does all the work for you. The Comanche has the same AP as the Cherokee, and it too is quite easy to fly by hand, tho it requires more planning ahead because it is faster. All the A2A planes are great tho, I would recommend any and all of them. Cheers TJ

For the same reason people enjoy flying restored warbirds today....they are fun B) For the same reason people like to drive vintage Shelby Cobras, Jags, Corvettes...etc....cause they are fun. Warbird fighters are the closest aviation equivalent to Shelby Cobras, Jaguar XJ13, Corvette Mako edition....ie thoroughbreds, designed to do nothing other than thrill the pilot/driver. The original thoroughbreds like the Schneider cup era Supermarine S6Bs, Macchi MC72 types don't exit anymore, at least no flying examples, so ex fighters are the closet thing to a pure thoroughbred airplane. From a pilot's perspective who only has real flight time in Cessna's, Pipers...etc....the chance to ride in, let alone get some stick time in one of those thoroughbreds would be nothing short of like being asked if I wanted to test drive or ride in a Jaguar XJ13 There is are no modern equivalent purely civilian aircraft designs comparable to the speed and power of a vintage warbird fighter, and the ones that come close like the Thunder Mustang, Turbine Legend..etc are based on fighter designs, namely the Mustang. The only thing I can think of that came close was the Pond Racer, but even that was left in the dust by Mustangs and Sea Furys at Reno. As for combat, thats fun too, but just for the sake of flying them, mastering these beasts and their systems, like worrying about the oil pressure in the Mustang getting too high because of the cold temps at high altitude....that kind of stuff. But FS is ultimately just a virtual fantasy world anyway, like any MMO or Sims or whatever, make it your own, fly what you like and what gives you a thrill. :smile: Cheers TJ

Hey guys, I know warbirds aren't as popular here as they are at SOH, but out of curiosity, whats your favorite warbird? Favorite warbird in general, currently simulated, want to see simulated. Flying warbirds is such a visceral form of flying, it's 'seat of the pants' flying seriously magnified. If you ever want to sharpen your 'seat of the pants' instincts, I can't think of a better teacher than a warbird. Not only does your 'grey matter' and instinct have to be sharp to fly the thing, you also get to keep a big V-12 or radial 'happy'. That and the sound of that big V-12 or radial is frickin awesome! :smile: Warbirds also look beautiful because they evolved from the 'golden age' of flying, and you can see the art deco and streamliner styling in their designs, like the Spitfire and it's Schneider cup racer heritage. My favorite warbird currently simulated is the A2A P-40. It is a rugged, and very 'manual' airplane....nothing automated in that thing. Like flying an old stickshift Jeep Something I would seriously love to see accusimmed is the Douglas A-26. Not only a fantastic warbird and excellent design, like the P-51, it makes for an excellent civilian transport. My fantasy airplane(If I had Bill Gates money) is the On Mark A-26 Executive Invader. :wub: Who would turn down a ride in this thing? lol It's hard to pick a favorite warbird in general, there are so many. The C-47 because my Grandfather flew them, the Spitfire IX because it's beautiful looks, the Mustang for it's capabilities, the FW-190D for its technological innovations, the Lancaster, Corsair....hard to pick lol So whats your favorite? :smile: Cheers TJ

If you enjoy the A2A types, and if you took the time to learn how to fly them well, I think you would enjoy the challenge of the PMDG. I am not a serious airliner person, I am mostly a GA flyer like yourself, but if I fly an airliner, I want to fly a realistic one. I think if you are going to spend the money you might as well get the best. As others have said, there are lots of tutorials and videos on how to fly the NGX. If you want something 'easier' to fly but still very realistic, you might consider the 777. It is very automated so it is somewhat 'easy' to fly. Cheers TJ