Private-Cowboy

Why is this hard to understand? It's just a load of misconception. What you notice as 'stuttering' is not low framerate as such but fluctuations. You don't really notice a constant 20fps as much as a sudden drop from 30 to 20. As you noted, DSR (a.k.a Downsampling) puts more load on the GPU and partially on the CPU lowering the framerate. Suddenly you don't drop from 30 to 20 but merely from 22 to 18. The fluctuations are much smaller resulting in the perception of increased 'smoothness'. The same applies to the appearance of less shimmering. There is less shimmering because the image is less sharp.

Do they actually ever complete a module? Aren't the Huey and Mi-8 still in beta?

Sorry to sound ignorant, but where is the benefit over downsampling via custom resolution? What DSR does is nothing else, except it only ever gives you one downsampling resolution at a time depending on your scaling factor. Via custom resolution you can have multiple and switch them ingame without constantly changing the DRS setting in the control panel. Furthermore the DSR factor often leads to very bad resolutions. A factor of 2x for example is exceptionally bad because it creates a resolution that has 1.415 times the height and width of your native one. Couple that with the smoothing of DSR and all you're doing is blurring the crap out of the image. A proper downsampling factor would be 2.25 (1.5*1.5) or 4.0 (2.0*2.0). Instead of smoothing one should rather use the NVIDIA FXAA option as it does not blur as badly as the DSR smoothing. So would you please enlighten me why you would want to use DSR with a totally iffy resolution and blur when you can achieve a better result by creating a custom resolution (2880x1620 on a monitor with 1920x1080 native res) and adding conventional MSAA/SGSSAA ontop. On thing DSR could be useful is for combining it with custom resolutions - if DSR allows for that. You could create a custom res of 3840x2160 (4K) on a monitor with 1920x1080 native and use DSR with a factor of 4.00 on top with no smoothing. That would clean things up and sharpen things nicely. But I doubt even SLI setups would be powerful enough for that effective 16K res. And menus would be unreadably small.

Theoretically yes but you need SGSSAA in certain cockpits to be able to read the gauges. The worst offender is A2A, their Panels and side-mounted GPS are an eyesore without SGSSAA. Flickering and unreadable you pretty much have to rely on SGSSAA to make em useful - with the respective butchering of the fps. Too bad A2A just can't be arsed to make proper gauges. Other devs and addons don't suffer from that, only the oh-so-advanced A2A tech. It's quite frustrating really being forced to fly in clear blue skies in the otherwise best addons because cloudy weather is impossible thanks to the needed SGSSAA

Glad to hear it will be only 5 bugs more. Waiting for the SP to see if I will give it another chance. As disappointed as I am with the release of a messed up plane, I must admit you are doing a great job at support.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes the Legacy quite fast for short strips. Lancair claims some 900 feet landing roll. Is that realistic? I would imagine you need more than that if you are coming in faster.

What data is this Legacy based on then? Official Lancair specs seem different in that regard. Despite that I will pass this time. It already has been an expensive month and although it seems to look great it saddens me that it is even less complex than the Duke with no need to monitor the engine.

Some short questions... - The specs of the Lancair speak of a stall speed of 65mph, the guide though mentions significantly faster approach speeds. I'm trying to evaluate to what extend the Legacy might be suitable for short grass strips around New Zealand. - Does the Legacy feature similar engine failures as the Turbine Duke? - Are the circuit breakers functional? Thanks in advance.

I had that as well. Flying solo I need a serious amount of trim for level flight. Fully loaded with people in back I start to bank up so violently that trim cannot compensate for it anymore. I was surprised how significant the trim has to be in solo flight, looks unreal in external view too. Just to put that in relation, my Katana 4x does level out with a trim of around 1-2 with two people and luggage on board while I need 7-9 in the Baron - solo with nothing in the back. There seems to be an issue with the CG here.

I'm having some serious issues with the 55. I get a crash of FSX every time I end a flight in the 55. It's basically a one way trip. If I end a flight, quit FSX or simply change plane -> crash to desktop. Every so often I get a crash when I select the 55 in the aircraft selection. I don't suffer those issues with my other planes (NGX, J41 and Katana 4x). I'm not sure why it should be related to the 55 but it obviously is. I tried a reinstall of the 55 but it did not help. The plane itself flies ok (despite the strange rudder issue) but my FSX somehow does not like her. I'm also seeing serious performance issues despite having a powerful IvyBridge system (3570k, 16GB Ram, ATI 6870). In my NGX I get fluid 25-30fps, in the Katana constant 30 and in the 55 I get 15fps ... in the middle of nowhere. Not sure why it should be this fps-heavy since there a no high end systems in it and the texture and model load is no worse than on the NGX.

Pumps work, I get both sounds. Depends on the setting. I start with high and go to low in flight as high pumps are rather noisy. One thing that looks like a bug is the lighting. The lighting of the radio stack works despite no power (battery off etc.). Intentional? Besides the switches for the lighting are not that easy to handle. Well hidden and without a proper tooltip so you don't know what intensity you have just set up. And one question. Rudder seems to effect the plane in similar fashion as aileron, the plane starts to bank if you apply rudder only. The rudder does work but it also generates banking to an extend. Is that indeed the case?

How do you actually move two levers in FSX at once? I guess in a real twin you'd move both prop levers at once. Moving one after the other results in a 'flying style' I would not want to enjoy in real life.

'Filthy' comes to mind, but in a good way. :Just Kidding: I must admit that I wrecked my plane during the first test flight. Landing in windy conditions was never much of a problem for me but the 55 behaves so differently that it was really challenging. Flying with asynchronous engine settings is a real treat. FInally a light GA without an on-rails-feeling. In desperate need for a ZK-reg though ... Please, someone with painting skills has to do it even if it's a 58.

It's actually quite nice. Purchased it, flown it and liking it ... I found the fuel pump sound very loud though. And the bump mapping of the engines looks to be a bit overdone from the VC. That was way worse on the Carenado C90 but it's still a tad too much here too. I really like the flight model though, it really feels as if you're moving through the air. It 'lacks' that flying brick syndrome that most addons give you where the plane is stable like a rock when flying. This one here actually feels ... alive. Something I've only seen in DCS and outside of FSX. Most addons are way to stable in the air. It might be ok for a 737 but for a small two seater? Overall a great little addition. And one sanely priced too!!! That alone is worth the support of MilViz - that they do not charge 40+$ for a 'simple' GA.

Sorry but I cannot understand those arguments in defense of a buggy product. Sure people waited long and are desperate for a King Air but the truck load of serious issues is nothing one should have to live with. And the argument that you can't take your girlfriend out for a cup-o-tea/dinner/spa-weekend is always the same just with a different activity depending on the price of the buggy product in need of defense. Nobody criticized the FDE or the visual quality so why do people always cry foul pointing at thosr parts of the addon? Those parts are good and were never questioned. It's the same old pile of bugs that is always there in new Carenado addons and the lack of will to do things right from the start. Why does every Carenado plane require several patches to fix the same things over and over again? You can't expect working pressurization for 40$? You can't expect proper lighting for 40$?? You can't expect working sound for 40$??? Are you f***ing kidding me? Maybe I can't take my wife out for dinner for 40 bucks but I'd rather take her out for a cup of coffee before letting it go down the drain of a developer who is either not willing or able to take their developing seriously. 30$ gets you a Katana 4x, 45$ gets you a PMDG J41, 47$ gets you a RealAir Turbine Duke and 50$ gets you an Accusimmed A2A. Carenado has gone into a league they are unable/unwilling to compete in and I'm sick of reading 'but the model looks so good' or 'you can't expect' any better at that price'. You can! And I do! This is far beyond the eyecandy-only-addon the C90 is. And the marketing bla-bla with 'Tested by real pilots' has to be the biggest joke of em all. How on earth does a real pilot not notice serious issues like missing starter sounds? Like a famous captain once said ... The Jetprop has been my last Carenado. I'll not support this nonsense any further. Close your eyes and have fun with the C90 if you can. I'll go and fly my Turbine Duke.

Really? Didn't know that. Why would plastic not be allowed for IFR?

Well it doesn't say what was piloted by the 'real-wold pilot'. Could be a motorized lawnmower.

Maybe they have a new feature going - a bug for a buck. Whoever finds all 40 first, gets a promise for a patch. :Party:

A lot of the frustration comes from the fact that this is the way Carenado does think EVERY SINGLE RELEASE. As was said above they don't even send out complete packages for testing. How can they claim that it was tested by real pilots then if they don't even give them the whole package? Carenado does this every time and the excuses are the same every time. Also the issues and bugs are the same every time. They repeat the same stupid mistaktes over and over and over and loyalists always defend it that other Addons have issues too and that the bugs will be fixed. Well Carenado will do a quick fix or two but the huge bulk of issues will remain unfixed as it has always been. Great individuals of the community will fix a few more on their own but a typical Carenado will never be properly tested. I don't have an issue with that if they would be properly priced. Carenado did great thinks for the flight sim world but recently they are getting more expensive with every release yet they don't increase their standard. 30 bucks would be borderline ok for the flying texture folder the Carenados usually are, 40 is plain greedy. We're talking Turbine Duke and J41 territory here and Carenado is not nearly up to the required standard here.

Thought as much. Can't really understand why Carenado is going overboard with the pricing. They are pretty much on par now with the Turbine Duke. And the wonderful J41 is even cheaper :-) Yet they don't deliver similar quality. Sorry but I'm not buying this time.

Unlikely that this will happen. The Duke is just too good and the C90 looks to be typical Carenado - visually pleasing but buggy and broken in many little details. I have not bought the C90 but the Jetprop and I've shelved her because of all the little issues and inaccuracies. And now the C90 is even more expensive and only 8 bucks away from a Turbine Duke that even offers engine damage simulation? I think Carenado is getting a bit optimistic here.It gets really frustrating that Carenado commits the same errors again and again in every new addon and relies on the users to fix them.

Would like to know that too. Thinking about one of the two.

Not that it is really either or as planes like the Katana or A2As prove. Even the NGX is not that framerate heavy. It's kind of a lame excuse. But I have to admit that the C90 look tempting. How does the turbine Duke handle this?

That is true but as far as I'm aware the RV7 or Duke don't even simulate that part completely. I purchased the RV7 beta and returned it for a refund because this rather expensive GA doesn't even had working circuit breakers. And neither had the piston Duke. I don't know for sure about the final RV7 or the Turbine Duke but if I'm looking a GA simulation for the scenario you mentioned I'd expect proper simulation of ALL systems, not only the main ones. The Katana does all of this and so much more for a price that is significantly cheaper and the only reason she is rejected and not taken into consideration is her speed? All those addons and even Carenado is fine and ok if they are what you're looking for. But they aren't complete simulations, neither in the cockpit nor outside of it.

That's fine and as said depends on what you're looking for. If you want a 'game' and go fast, than the RV or Duke are fine. If you want a sim, they are worth less because they simply don't simulate properly. The developer of the Katana is working on an DA20 Eclipse and a Pilatus Porter. Both will offer those features but will be faster. I'm waiting for those desperately because I'd like to go faster too. But I'm not willing to sacrifice everything my Katana gives me for a little speed.