Anyone have Flight 1 Cessna 441 Conquest?

[anthony31]

I think it is possible to objectively rate add on aircraft (up to a degree though). For example I listed a few aircraft and their FPS performance earlier in this post. I got the idea for this from reading a review of an Airbus where the reviewer gave a percentage for frame rates based on the default 737. If you know how well the 737 performs on your system and the addon aircraft gives say 80% frame rates (100% equals the same rates as the default) then you can make a judgement on whether or not this will be acceptable to you.

I think this would be much more helpful to anyone reading a review rather than the more general (and highly fluid and subjective) terms such as "acceptable rates on my system".

Of course this may not be 100% accurate as processor speed versus graphics card speed versus RAM may have an effect on how well things run. I suspect however that aircraft performance in 2D and VC has more to do with processor speed than graphics card (maybe scenery performance is more weighted towards graphics card than CPU speed). I have the ifly 747 which in the 2D view with no panel displayed gives frame rates near the default 747 while with the 2D panel it cuts frame rates to about 50%.

I don't expect publishers to start giving frame rate comparisons (how many extra copies of FSX do you think Microsoft sold because of the unrealistically low minimum specs they give) but it is something I'd like reviewers to try.

Any other thoughts or am I just talking through my hat?

[gitdan]

Hi-

I purchased the Flight 1 Cessna 441 Conquest. It's a nice plane.

I'm not computer knowledgeable enough to comment on frame rates performance and such. My machine "bogs" down when I approach major air centers or highly detailed scenery. I can't say how much is attributable to the plane and how much is due to the scenery. I just "live" with it.

I felt the landing gear was a little "skimpy" in appearance, but the designer probably knows better than me. He/she probably had technical specs and drawings available.

If I could modify the plane, that's the only thing I'd change.

Regards...

I'm running the 441 with an AMD 3700 with 1.5 of ram and a Nvidia GF6500 (256 DDR) card. I also have Pilots FSGlobal 2008 and numerous airport add ons. I set the frame rate to unlimited, the plane to median low, scenery on medium high and weather to real time. My frame rates seldom fall below 15/20and when in flight at altitude around 30/40. Works for me. Once when landing in Fairbanks in a rainstorm/blizzard the rate dropped to 10 or so.

Love the plane but still having problems understanding or working the Approach settings. Sometimes it works and other times does nothing. Probably me not the plane.

[jwenting]

I think it is possible to objectively rate add on aircraft (up to a degree though). For example I listed a few aircraft and their FPS performance earlier in this post. I got the idea for this from reading a review of an Airbus where the reviewer gave a percentage for frame rates based on the default 737. If you know how well the 737 performs on your system and the addon aircraft gives say 80% frame rates (100% equals the same rates as the default) then you can make a judgement on whether or not this will be acceptable to you.

No, that's not possible.
Not only are framerates pretty meaningless, they depend greatly on the individual system you're running the thing on.
Depending on specific design options something that runs at a specific percentage of your baseline score on your machine may well run at quite different performance ratings on someone elses.

I think this would be much more helpful to anyone reading a review rather than the more general (and highly fluid and subjective) terms such as "acceptable rates on my system".

Hardly. Framerates are a useless statistic.

I don't expect publishers to start giving frame rate comparisons (how many extra copies of FSX do you think Microsoft sold because of the unrealistically low minimum specs they give) but it is something I'd like reviewers to try.

The minimum specs are not unrealistic. As already stated it's the lowest they know the software will start under, they never made any claims as to it working at 1000fps with all sliders turned to max that way.

It's way past the time for people to get over this mad fixation of "framerates".
Maybe it's something about wanting to class everything as a single number, but it's totally and utterly pointless.

Any other thoughts or am I just talking through my hat?

Looks like you are.

[Leo112]

If you decide to get the Conquest use this eyepoint setting:

eyepoint=3.0, -1.3, 2.5

This gives you a more realistic pilot viewpoint from within the VC...

[Edam]

I have the 441 and it's a nice plane. It ran fine on a 2.23Ghz single core with 512 megs of ram.

And that baby is pretty fast too.

[Nealoc187]

I know this is an old thread but I have it, it's not bad. Kind of long in the tooth so it's pretty simple to fly, easy on the framerates, etc.

[AJW]

I am looking for a new aircraft and the Flight 1 Cessna 441 Conquest has caught my eye.

Only you can judge what is acceptable performance for you. As for the Flight-1 Cessna 441, I've flown it a lot in the past, even around the world. Nice plane.

However, I suggest that you seriously consider the pressurized Pilatus PC-12, which I prefer. Its single turbo-prop engine produces almost exactly the same horsepower as the 441's two engines, and its performance is outstanding. It can fly high and fast, yet get in and out of short fields with ease.

AJW

[napamule2]

AJW,
I hate to be negative, but, my opinion is that he is only interested in bragging about the 35 FPS he is getting. He probably doesn't even fly them. Just parks them there on the runway, so he can admire the frame rate(s). The 'specs' query is just to mask his real intentions-bragg about (the least interesting or relevant subject in simming) Frame Rates. It's a shame, if it's true. Getting 'hung up' on frame rates, especially when he procures 'only the best' (payware) AC available, is just so sick. Turns my stomach.
Chuck B
NapaMule

[Edam]

I hate to be negative, but, my opinion is that he is only interested in bragging about the 35 FPS he is getting. He probably doesn't even fly them. Just parks them there on the runway, so he can admire the frame rate(s).

You have GOT to be kidding. There must be an awful lot of things that "turn your stomach" on these forums in that case. Sheesh! Talk about ASS-U-ming.

[napamule2]

'And that baby is pretty fast too.'
You too can join the 'anthony31 club'-you qualify. I rest my case.
Chuck B
NapaMule