A gap in my FS aircraft collection

[Skybird]

Somehow I miss an aircraft class in my collection for FS9. My flyables are this:

RealAir SF260 (very small)
Dreamfleet 172 Cardinal (very small)
RealAir Spitfire (very small, historic)
Digital Aviation Piper Cheyenne (small, has completely replaced my using of the older Dreamfleet C-421 Golden Eagle)
RF4D (DC-3) by RCS (historic, special interest FS2000 airplane, medium size)
Level-D 767 (very big)
PMDG 747 (very big)

Obviously I lack one piece in the medium to big departement, something in the range of a Fokker-20, A319 or A320, ATR-42/72, maybe Boeing 737. but I already have two Boeings, I do not want another Boeing-philosophy cockpit, the two I have already are very similiar. I used the dreamfleet B737 in FS2K and FS8 anyway.

As you see I run only top quality airplanes, which by consens are considered to be amongst the best modules available.

Any recommendation for a module in the size range I said, that is of similiar quality and reliability and realism?

I spent a bit too much time with tanks recently, you see...

[Chock]

This is very cool, and I recommend it:

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=atr1

Chock

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Chock

This is very cool, and I recommend it:

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=atr1

Chock

Sounds good - but the frame rate is said to be hurting, according to this (German) comprehensive review: http://www.flusiforum.de/reviews/includer.php?site=atrf1&title=Paywareflugzeuge%20% 3E%20Flight1%20ATR%2072

Your experience?

[Chock]

Just making a movie to demo framerates, gimme a few minutes

Chock

[Chock]

Okay Skybird, just for you, there is a demo of the Flight 1 ATR-72 (FSX variant) on the link below. As you'll see, the framerates can suffer a bit when things get busy, and I have kind of forced this a bit by doing some very un-airliner-like aerobatics with the thing. But, in fairness to Flight 1, when I made that little demo earlier, I had FSX on 1360x1024 resolution with lots of the graphics options turned up and most of the whistles and bells on my ATI PCI-x card on too.

Keep in mind that the Flight 1 ATR is a very sophisticated add on for FSX and FS9 (both versions are very similar, and if you buy one, you can download the other version for free). Flight 1's ATR was developed in close collaboration with the real ATR company, with one of the reasons for this being so ATR could use it as a marketing tool. Therefore Flight 1 had pretty much unprecedented access to the manufacturer's data and it shows in the product, which is very slick and accurate in almost every operational respect. Even the windscreen wipers clean the rain off the windshield in FS, for god's sake! But of course with all the calculations for such accuracy going on, it's true that it is a bit of a framerate hog.

Personally, I am prepared to accept the slight effect on framerates, as I regard it as the price of such sophistication, and of course I am never normally using the ATR at such speeds on approach to an airfield, or pulling silly low level rolls in the thing!

Link to my demo vid here:

Chock

[Skybird]

Just watched it. Thanks for the job. It's the first time that somebody has made a movie just for me.

What are your system specs?

I must admit, that framerate in that movie is scaring me, although I am by far no frame-rate-maniac. I accept frames below let's say 15 when doing flights at higher altitudes (where you do not realize it that much as long as you do not panning around in VC), or while taxiing on the ground, but during approach and landing, and manipulating the panels via VC and TrackIR I want 20 for a minimum. With frames like in that video of yours I would even run the risk of slamming into a building while oversteering during taxiing.

I have a P4-3 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 7900GS AGP (256), Audigy 2, and I use Fighterstick and ProThrottle, Simped Vario Pro, and TrackIR 4. I use 1280x1024 resolution. But with the incredibly crammed and detailed Cheyenne (with moving wipers, too! ) I get frames in VC of 12-15 when taxiing at a detailed addon-airports, and 15-22 inflight, with 50% cloud coverage and AI traffic at 20%. Your video looks like very much below these frame rate values!? The 767 and the 747 also are frame rate-demanding, but do not drop below 15 during taxing, and remain 18-22 during flight, in VC.

I do not want to bash your system when asking for your specs, but if your system comopares to mine, I know that I will not run it any better, and if your system is much older, I know that there is some reserves for me to gain. If your system is even better than mine, then - well...

Again, thanks for the time and effort you invested! But I must think twice about this package. The german review I linked to is very fair and baöanced, but they also mentioned the frame rate problem. Ignoring the frames, it looks like a decent airplane. not many reviews around, btw. Avsim also seems to have none.

P.S. Just noted you were running it in FSX. So we cannot compare anything anyhow anyway, I fear. I had FSX for some days when it came out, then sold it via ebay, and jumped onto FS9, getting all the addons for low prices since former oweners abandoned FS9. FSX at 1024x768 and default settings was pretty much the frame rate like in that video, and sometimes even much worse. But i loved the cockpit of the Goose. That's the only thing I really miss from it. The Goose I have is by far not so cozy a pilot's pit.

[Chock]

Okay here are the specs for the computer it was running on (which is as you guessed one of my old clunky ones), to help you out, I'll make an FS9 vid of it too, I suspect it will run better in that, haven't tried it on my Vista PC either, it would probably be smoother on that one too, but the movie was made on this:

Intel Pentium 4 530 Prescott socket 775 LGA 90 nm running at standard 1.4v at 3.00 Ghz. Motherboard: ASUS P5GD1

Clock speeds Core: 3006.8Mhz. multiplier x15. L1 16KB. L2 1024KB. Bus speed: 200.5Mhz. FSB: 801.9 Mhz.

Memory: 2048 Mb DDR @ 200.5 Mhz

Graphics card is a PCI-X ATI Radeon X800GT

Chock

[Chock]

Alright, here is the Flight 1 ATR-72 in FS9:



Notice it has much better frame rate, never dropped below the locked 30 FPS in fact (this is the same airport - Glasgow - as in the other movie, same computer, same graphics card settings and much the same options checked in FS9 as were checked in FSX including exactly the same weather). Note that although it looks darker, that is simply because I didn't bother lightening the video footage FRAPS took in this one, the virtual cockpit in the FS9 version is just the same as the one in the FSX version.

From this I would assume that it would run just fine on your rig Skybird, since that computer is also a 3Ghz Pentium 4, only real difference being the graphics card and the RAM. Note that I imagine the FSX version would run better on Vista too, but I haven't tried that yet, might do that tomorrow.

Incidentally, if you do decide to get the ATR, and believe me it is worth it, I hope you like reading, because the manual is nearly 500 pages long!

Some screengrabs for you too:













Chock

[Skybird]

Yeah - that looks much more in smoothness like the things I usually run. Thanks again, Chock. Taking into account the age of the module, and my rig being updated with a good graphics card, and that it is able to handle a plane that is at least as complex as this ATR seem to be, I think I'll put it onto my list. This month I already invested in my Spitfire and updating my German Airports series, but next month there should be some space. And after that, the Scenery Germany series, and I'm complete again (with the exception of Austria and the Alpes).

If that ATR really is as detailed as they say, you are a real candidate for that Piper Cheyenne once it is out for FSX. The Garmin system is that exactly modelled that they did not document it's functions, but just referred to the real manufacturer's homepage to get the manual for the real device. Attention to detail concenring other aspects is on the same breathtaking level.

Do you fly all your commuters like fighter-bombers?

[Skybird]

Ha...! I just learned that Hans Hartmann had his hands in developing the ATR. Well, you maybe do not know it, but he is a legend in Germany's sim community, being known for absolutely superior aircraft developing and modelling. He is one of the most top developers of this kind of stuff, known for spectacular realism and pedantic attention to detail. The Piper Cheyenne I mentioned an described in another thread - is by him and his team, as well as the legendary Diamond Katana ( http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte/_php_screenshots2/screenshots.php?sp=fsx&p=katanax ) and now the DO-27 (http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/DA_DO27.htm). If I wouldn't already have the RealAir SF260 (featuring the same aircraft class), I would own these two beauties, too.

Okay, now i know what to expect from the ATR.

[Chock]

Yup, I know Hartmann is one of the FS good guys, and no, I don't normally fly airliners like that, but I knew that throwing it around like that would put a strain on the frame rates, both in FSX and FS9, so it seemed like a good way to test it. If the line captain at WestWind saw me doing that, he'd probably ask me to leave:rotfl:

I did actually once see a test pilot throwing a Boeing 757 about like that, he didn't roll it, but he did lots of other pretty wild things. If I recall correctly, that was at the last ever airshow at Woodford (BAe's test airfield, just up the road from me, near Manchester, EGCC), seeing the Boeing 757 do that kind of stuff was more thrilling than watching a fighter do a display for me personally, as it was really weird to watch it being thrown around like a fighter plane. Of course it was only lightly loaded, but you'd be surprised how agile an airliner can be, I certainly was!

One thing this little test does seem to point out though, is that the flight modelling is very different in FSX from FS9 even in fairly tame flight regimes, and I suspect that, being more complicated in FSX, it adds further strain to things. I noticed that the FS9 ATR seems to want to play the stall warning a little sooner than the FSX one, for example.

Be warned that the flight director on the ATR is kind of bizarre in comparison to Boeing and Airbus ones, with the autopilot heading indicator showing up on the HSD and stuff like that, and it does take a bit of getting used to if you normally fly Boeing and Airbus, but the nice thing about the ATR is that you can do a 'by the book' airline flight which only takes an hour or so, as opposed to one in say the PMDG 747, where you need to have a spare afternoon! But if you like absolutely every single system being modelled accurately on your FS aircraft, the ATR will not disappoint you, that's for sure.

On the subject of German Airports, if your system can handle those, I'm guessing the ATR would be okay, I have some very detailed payware scenery for Frankfurt's airport, and that's sometimes a bit of a show-stopper for framerates!

Anyway, happy landings.

Chock

[Skybird]

Ordered the ATR 72 today, together with a PMDG 737, which maybe is crazy: ordering two such complex packages at the same time. surprisingly I had some problems to get the ATR 72 - it was available at Aerosoft until some days ago, and even for reduced price, and today: it was gone. Needed to spend slightly more money again via simmarket. It is in preparation of the new release, i suppose, which will combine the FS9 and FSX version in one package (and higher price again).

I consider my collection of aircrafts that I wanted, to be complete now.

[CCIP]

You two are seriously making me curious about FS again. I still haven't gone to FSX, and I never did get into payware for the previous FS titles, but I'm really starting to wonder about these add-ons. The potential price is the only thing scaring me off.

Since I think the main discussion here is over - what would you experts recommend as a good FSX starting package, at minimum? (I mean FSX itself is a starting package, but if I really wanted to go beyond vanilla and have a high-quality setup like that...)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

You two are seriously making me curious about FS again. I still haven't gone to FSX, and I never did get into payware for the previous FS titles, but I'm really starting to wonder about these add-ons. The potential price is the only thing scaring me off.

Since I think the main discussion here is over - what would you experts recommend as a good FSX starting package, at minimum? (I mean FSX itself is a starting package, but if I really wanted to go beyond vanilla and have a high-quality setup like that...)

It depends on what you would like to focus on.

I for example do not care if an airliner is meant for medium or long range: I want the complexity of planning the flight, and bringing the cockpit to life, programming the FMC, then takeoff and approach and landing. I plan it that betweem top of climb and beginning descent there is not more than just 15--20 minutes. I see no point in having a lot of work and hectic in the first 30 minutes - and then sitting and staring at the monitor for another 6 hours becasue it is a 767 on transatlantic flight. I fly the same 767 from berlin to Munich, or Hamburg to Frankfurt only, that way I have may hands busy almost all the time.

Good airport sceneries is important for me, it adds to the immersion and is nice during chnagign weather conditions. that'S why I am collectore of the German Airports series by Aerosoft.

If you want good environemnt in general, get a combination of mesh-updates and texture replacements, in FS9, Global 2005 and Ultimate Terrain series did the trick for me - super combo! For FSX, there is already global 2008.

If you want a small but challenging, complex, state-of-the-art and ultra-realistic private airplane, wait for the FSX conversion of the Piper Cheyenne by Aerosoft. the FS9 version is second to none. Superb VC.

Aerobatics? realAir is an excellent choice then. I have both their SF260 and Spirtfire. Superior virtual cockpits and flight physics.

Airliners? You just red it: for long range, either the Level-D 767 or PMDG 747, for medium range the PMDG 737 (two packages with two different versions each are available). The ATR 72 we talked about of course is a slow moving regional transport.

I think you can't go wrong with any of these. the Airliner packages are so complex in functionality that I have given up to fly Falcon - I constantly learn and relearn for these big birds instead.

As I just said in another thread, there is the FSX conversion of Flight Environment soon to be released, which i also consider to be a must-have.

there are Traffic programs, cabin communication programs, and so much more, but all of these are picking away at your CPU ressources, so I tend to stay away from such things.

check the websites of www.aerosoft.de (English version available), many of the products listed have many screenshots and even sharp videos available; and http://www.flight1.com/. These two companies are the number one and two in the business.

I use Train Sim to relax between flights, and SBP to wake up if I fell asleep...