tttocs

Another vote for the VR. Really, you'll be glad you did in the long run. Scott

I moved to ASN for many of the reasons others state. No "popping" of wx, the way the product handles turbulence, the simplicity without sacrificing flexibility, the lack of abrupt windshifts, the visibility effects used when flying through clouds which almost makes the clouds appear to be volumetric and on and on. It was without question the best wx engine I'd tried up to that point in time, and I've never looked back. On support, however, credit where credit is due as one thing you absolutely cannot fault Opus on is support. As an example, one day I found an issue with the way Opus was handling a certain METAR which caused it to consistently ignore the report at that field. I reported it on the official forums, Stephen responded within a matter of minutes asking for further details, found the problem, announced a fix within hours and made the fix available in the next day's beta build. Support doesn't get much better than that. Scott A quick edit - I should also point out that while I kept my version of Opus fairly current just to "check-in" once in a while, that stopped with the release of their new version this fall, which I did not purchase, so I have no idea what the very latest improvements bring to the table.

There are a few new technology additions to the 182, including full support for the Mindstar, RXP and new F1 GPS units if you have them. But the biggest difference is that IRL, the 172 and 182 are very different aircraft to fly, and A2A have done a wonderful job of making you feel those differences. The 182 is a substantially bigger and heavier plane and they've somehow managed to convey that feeling. And as expected, the interactions between the 182's constant speed prop and manifold pressure are well modeled, so you've got that difference to play with as well. I confess that despite recognizing the 172 as a very well-done simulation of a 172, I just never flew it much as fixed prop, fixed gear planes just aren't my sweet spot. The 182, on the other hand, I've been flying the heck out of. I would argue that both Carenado's 210 and especially the 337 very much have their own unique feel. The 210 needs a few simple mods to flesh it out and make it right, but the 337 is a gem without much fiddling, right down to the added drag from the gear doors during gear retraction. The 337 has great visibility, a well laid out cockpit and RXP support - a combination which makes for a very nice IFR trainer as well as an excellent sight-seeing plane. Still, my vote would currently be for the A2A 182 if you want the best. Great sound, and the flight and engine modeling is second to none. Accu-sim is more than just a marketing name. Just remember if you go this route that it really is about as close to real as you can get, and the fact that certain "FSX sim-isms" have been removed sometimes throws people off if they've not flown an A2A plane before. Scott

Gregg, I feel your pain. I would love to move to a better yoke, and I've pretty much convinced myself that the PFC is what I'd like to save my pennies for - except for the lack of a hat. There are some compromises we have to make over "real as it gets" and to me, a hat is one of those necessary compromises. And so, I stick with my Saitek compromise. Scott

Nice review Ryan - thanks from me as well. On the sounds, it appears to be the model they (Carenado/Alabeo) have settled on - bad sound recycled into every new plane. Sorry, but I've had to buy aftermarket sets for the last two Carenados I've bought, and this whole sound thing may well be the final straw for me on their airplanes. I climb into A2A's 182 and realize how good sound can be for a piston plane (as well as pretty much everything else). Sure the A2A is more expensive than the comparable Carenados, but when I add in another $10-$15 dollars for the cost of a sound set, it becomes a head-shaker. Stil it is great they're moving to 750 support no doubt. Charles I think Milviz' support for the 750 on the 310 and B55 requires you to buy a separate P3D version to get to V2. If in FSX (and P3D 1.4), the V2 update supporting the F1 Garmin's is $9.99 for existing owners. Scott

Where's the Col du Tourmalet? :rolleyes: (For those who don't follow bicycle racing - this is the most famous of the Pyrenees climbs.) Very nice - thanks! Scott

Excellent. Enjoy! Scott

Do you have damage on in FSX? Scott

Gregg, as others have mentioned, buttons are completely assignable so you can do what you want. Personally, I've never mapped AP disconnect to the yoke, as my AP console is mounted directly above the yoke mere inches from my left hand, but if you don't use the PTT button (on the back side of the left handle) you could use that I suppose. Scott

RealAir Turbine Duke, but with a caveat. V2 is due out "real soon now" ™. If the V2 Turbine Duke is anywhere near as good an update as the V2 piston Duke was, a great plane is about to get even better and will definitely be worth waiting for. Scott

A 172 and a 182 don't fly the same IRL, and I can now say after picking mine up yesterday that they don't in A2A's world either. Scott

Hmm... I use a Saitek yoke, pedals and quadrant (two of 'em actually) and they work quite well with the A2A 172 and 182. I also use Saitek's multipanel, and radio panel and have them working reasonably well (though I still need to do some fine tuning on some of the AP functions). I do use FSUIPC, though I believe there are many who control them directly. A2A also provide an "input configurator" which can help with customization for non-FSUIPC folks. For the multipanel and radio panel I do use SPAD rather than the Saitek drivers. SPAD is pretty much required for the multipanel to be useful in any plane which uses anything beyond the standard FSX autopilot functions. That's not to say that some users don't experience issues, as the A2A planes don't function like default FSX planes, but there are many of us out there using Saitek gear quite successfully. Scott

Nothing morbid about it. You can learn an awful lot from accident reports and analyses. In the US, "Flying" magazine also features a monthly column of almost-accidents as well called "I learned about flying from that", and it was almost always the first feature I'd turn to each month. We learn from mistakes - and it's great if they don't always have to be our own. BTW, always nice to hear from fellow GA enthusiasts. Scott

I'm afraid we'd have to agree to disagree on this one. If what Carenado was doing with their recent planes were really a "headphone's on" thing, you sure wouldn't be able to listen to the sounds of the gyros spinning over the engine noise, or hear switch clicks that are louder than the engine, or... well, you get the idea. You wouldn't hear most of that stuff at all. Engines are typically started with headphones off anyway (or at least partly off the ears so you can hear what's happening, as engines don't start as easily IRL as they do in most sim planes), so you'd at least hear the starting sequence, and even with active noise cancelling 'phones, you still FEEL those low-end rumblings (and still hear a bit as well) in most poorly insulated poorly noise-attenuated, resonant GA cabins. Carenado has attenuated the lows to the point that engines sound like a chain saw buzzing. To my mind they don't sound like anything in the real world. It seems like they've taken the easy road, going with sounds that could fit just about any plane "with headphones on" :-). They've moved from sounds that, if not quite accurate were at least fun and involving in planes like their Bonanzas, the 337 or the 210, to sounds that bear little relation to reality, are almost completely non-involving and are simply bad. If the Saratoga sounds are similar to what Carenado's been doing of late, I'm sure I'd have to explore the 3rd party sound world yet again. And yes, that world can be disappointing as well. That said, for me, Arezone soundsets are all that saved the Malibu (a plane I very much like) and the Seneca (a plane I really want to like, but can't quite get there yet). Their sounds are still not perfect, but at least they give me a credible "I'm really in a GA cockpit" feeling - and GA cockpits are a place where I've spent many wonderful hours with no headphones, noise attenuating headphones and active noise-cancelling headphones. Sounds aside, it seems like one of the biggest pieces of news is that the plane is the first Carenado/Alabeo to support integration with GTN750 and RXP530, while one of the biggest disappointments might be that the second GPS isn't upgradeable from the default to anything. Scott

Pros and cons for each of the choices, but I'd say the biggest pro for the Mindstar units is that navdata subscriptions are available. Biggest cons - currently no precision WAAS approach support and potential performance and memory issues as compared to the F1 units which do most of the heavy lifting outside of the sim's process space. One of the most undervalued aspects of the old RXP units in FSX was that they typically improved performance over the same plane with the vendors' built-in GPSs, and while I don't have them (yet) I understand the F1 units have a similar advantage. I looked at that discussion and noticed that you hammered pretty heavily on the import FSX/P3D flightplan issue. I think it's important to note (and I didn't notice that anyone in that discussion did) that the whole notion of importing from FSX/P3D flight plans to a nav instrument containing updated NAV data is wildly impractical from the get-go. The navdata built into FSX/P3D is years out of date and in no way compatible with what's in units with newer navdata. After years of using the RXP units, for example, I can tell you that even saved flight plans generated from the RXP's are life limited. Once you load newer data, many saved flight plans become obsolete and unusable. Any time you move to an add-on nav device which uses new or relatively new data, be it GA GPS units or FMSs in tubes, you by definition divorce yourself from the built-in FSX/P3D planners and their ancient nav data. That's not a new thing - it's been the case for many years now. A good many of us who fly with updated nav data have long since also updated FSX/P3D navaids with Hervé Sors navaid updates anyway, which absolutely BUSTS the FSX planner. Scott

I have to admit that had I known what the roadmap was going to be, I would've probably passed on the 172 and waited for both the Cherokee and the 182. Bought the 172 mostly because I really wanted to see what A2A brought to the table for GA. Answer? A lot, but IRL the 172 was a plane I tolerated until I could move up to planes I simply enjoyed more, and so it is in the sim. I'll definitely get the 182, and at that point will probably never fly the 172 again. Not because it's a bad plane (it's not - it's a great plane and A2A have done a wonderful job at creating an accurate sim representation), but because - well - it's a 172. Scott

I think this is the big catch. You've got to have had at least an Orbx North American region somewhere, or Global in order to have FTX Central and be able to either select NA (if you have an NA region) or Global and get things to work. Those like me who've invested in NA regions (I have them all) but not Global will be OK, but if you've got neither I don't think it's going to work. Scott

Efrain, I run a fair amount of MSE and MSX scenery for the SW US (where I think it's amazing) and for the Midwest (where it ranges from good to OK). Mine are currently divided between 500GB and 1TB Western Digital Black 7200 RPM drives and I've never seen an issue with it on the 7200 RPM drives. My main system and apps drive is a 10K V'raptor, and I'd love to move that and FSX to an SSD (or SSDs), but have decided to wait until I build my next machine. But when I do, the 7200 drives will still hold the photo stuff. So there's one guy's opinion for what it's worth. Scott

With the airports inside regions it's a bit dicier, since the regions feature custom mesh and other changes. Quite often you'll not only have color issues, but some serious elevation and alignment issues as well. In this case, however, so long as you're working with default mesh you should be fine other than texture blending. Scott

I completely agree with Gregg. Often in the sim world things get oversimplified into broad categories (in part because models haven't always been sophisticated enough) whereas in RW aviation the differences are more easily recognized. In sim terms - "Hey, two high wing singles (172 and 182) - no real difference." IRL, however, moving from a 172 (still fairly small and light, with under 200 HP and fixed pitch prop) to a 182, (larger, far more power and a constant speed prop) is a significant step. As Scott mentions in the video, the feel, handling and power are all markedly different from the 172 and trim suddenly becomes your best friend. If they can capture those differences, I'm in. I do also wish they'd done an RG, however. Scott

Yes, but in discussions on the Orbx forum when this was first announced Jarrad had said this should work fine with default AND with MSX SoCal (other than some color mismatches), and that it would also be updated with any adjustments necessary when the planned SoCal region gets done. Scott

OK, I'll bite. I'm the former owner/pilot of a single engine Piper. Lowering flaps on my plane resulted in no appreciable pitch changes whatsoever at typical CG. Now - a question for you... with the information I've given you, can you guess what my plane was and why it behaved differently from your generalized statement? The answer has to do with things others have mentioned, and with one thing that has not. The bottom line is - there's LOTs of variability in aircraft behavior on flap extension, depending on many, many factors as well as the interplay of those factors. The real point here being that you're being taken to task for rather large generalizations in terms of both RW and sim. Those generalizations indicate somewhat limited experience on your part as you're extrapolating a small sample into all planes and all of FS 2004. Neither is appropriate. THAT's what people are reacting to. Scott

I'm another holdout, but not because I need a kick. Just wanted to point out that there are still valid reasons for staying on FSX for the time being for many users. In my case, its not that I'm a Luddite, afraid of change, it's that I'm still missing too many pieces that matter too much to me. I fly GA, and am heavily invested in planes and equipment which are one way or another not fully working or don't have proper integration with other tools when in P3D. Yes, I know some of what I fly can be "made to work', but that's not what I'm looking for, as I don't enjoy tweaking. I want to spend my limited time flying, not fiddling, so I need/want "supported and working well". When I mention "equipment", I'm specifically thinking of my RXP530 and 430 which will never work in P3D. Yes, I know the new Flight1 Garmins will eventually be a good replacement as they gain additional support (and a few more features), but they're not there yet and can only be VC integrated on 2 of my planes (and that, only with some incremental cost). And Orbx is still working on getting airports moved over that I don't want to fly without. It's getting closer, but at the moment I still can't recreate enough of my FSX environment in P3D without giving up more than I feel I'd gain. I'm sure I'll eventually get there, but it's still not quite worth the time and effort for my needs. My apologies if anyone feels this is an inappropriate post for this forum, but note that I'm not bashing and am posting only in response to the idea that there's no reason NOT to switch. Unfortunately, there still are a few for some users. Scott

Palm Springs is a regular airport for me using MegasceneryX SoCal and US Cities LA (yes, surprisingly both of these products reach all the way past Banning and into Palm Springs). My first reaction was that there was no way this would be compatible, as MSX SoCal does some very strange things with scenery objects and its own mesh, and even Cities LA had some issues which took time to correct. But after reading the Orbx intro thread, Jarrad says it should work fine. I'm a huge fan of Jarrad's work (have all of his US airports), so with the compatibility question out of the way, this'll be an easy purchase decision. A major wow on the preview images. Scott

Why is Austin a "lesser airport"? Not a major hub, sure, but "lesser"? There are some of us who really, really appreciate having more well done regional airports and who are willing to pay for them if they're good. Good regional airports are always going to attract a smaller audience than a major hub will, so they're going to require somewhat higher prices. I'm OK with that in order to get more and better regionals, which are the airports I'm more interested in. Will give this one a serious look. Scott