WidowsSon

Just to be clear, If a 3'rd party were to come out with a complete study level Cessna Single I'd buy it for sure. This just isn't it. I also don't want to jump on the comments about Carenado as a company but have a look around at others opinions and it's kind of clear what the updates for this aircraft will look like. Non-existent.

I haven't purchased the C182T for the following reasons, so consider this sort of my review or at least my thought process on it. I don't think the 182 offers many people much in terms of value. If you are training or learning in a Cessna (which you should like almost everyone else on the planet :) ) flight principles and basics, the included Cesnna's are more than adequate. In fact better IMO. Faster isn't better when learning. With that, the standard edition C152 with the old Six-Pack gauges is exactly perfect for learning and well modeled. Once you have that perfected, I'd suggest the C172 (Premium edition) without the G1000 (six-pack instead) so that you are not re-learning flight instruments, and just getting used to a more powerful aircraft in every way. the Standard edition C172 G1000 is perfect to familiarize yourself with a glass cockpit. If you are proficient with the C172 G1000, your next step should be some of the more powerful aircraft or low-wing with different (less stable) flight characteristics. And there are lots of options here. Cirrus or Diamond Aircrafts etc... So for a beginner, the 182T offers little. From what I understand, its a nice enough aircraft model, but with stock G1000 avionics (so they didn't add anything here) and really nothing in the way of being addon specific. All you are really getting (assuming the flight model is correct) is a bit better performance at MSL (Mean Sea Level) and albeit much better performance at altitude. The turbos do not make a huge difference unless you are up high. The included Cessna's were more than adequate for what little flight I might be doing in them. (probably training videos to teach people basic flight principles, circuits, stalls etc..) I'd say the only people I'd recommend purchasing the 182T are those that are huge fans of the Cessna single engines and want better climb or altitude performance, or people who own one and want to replicate theirs. Otherwise its a pass for me. I'd have probably bought it for much less than the current price, but as far as I know its just an aircraft model without anything special. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks Frank, Appreciate the kind words.

The windscreen is the major sticking point for me. Reaching out to the developer for a fix as the other items can be overlooked for now for the price. It's a fun little aircraft regardless of the flight model for 8 bucks. That being said, the ZLIN shock ultra if you have deluxe is also a great little aircraft even if it seems a bit too good sometimes.

I'm guessing he wants to see the actual IAP Chart (Instrument Approach Procedure)

1.) Needs this IMO. Hopefully saving them like DCS to replay later. (although unlike DCS I'd like it to work) Who doesn't want to watch their landings from an external view later. 2.) I think there is a sim rate that cycles... ? 3.) drop-down would be nice. I think there are wishlists for the top one anyway... should make sure you've voted it up. Would really like to see this.

Stevemill, I agree with you, I wish it could stay on the topic of simulation. I appreciate the diplomacy. To be fair, I'm not looking for an apology, but one was never issued. The apology was to you over mentioning flaps instead of ailerons, not to me. Just getting the context right here, not looking for something. An apology is unneeded. we all make mistakes and jump to sarcastic remarks sometimes. I do however not appreciate accusations that are incorrect that I was providing false information or being dishonest. A simple redaction of that comment would have sufficed instead of the insistence that although incorrect is justified because I implied something else (that it wasn't flight modeled etc..) which I did not. I don't think replying to a constant barrage of implications that I did not make is also indicative of me being anything other responsive or reactive to my thread. Why wouldn't I respond to something on my thread when incorrect, accusatory and the very thing I'm being painted? How is it that you can paint such an ugly picture of someone blatantly disregarding any facts. I have a non-monetized channel that I provide tutorials for the most part to the community for no other reason than the enjoyment of contributing. I also attempt to be as fair and balanced as I can in my first review of an aircraft. If you don't like it or disagree, I'm more than happy to listen to your criticism or varied opinions. I value them and take notes. I don't need a "Sorry not Sorry" from anyone, nor am I look for it. I just pointed out that what was accused of me is untrue. And that isn't an opinion. Its a clearly stated fact. It's too bad that this thread has become this. Restraint is exactly what I feel I've exhibited. Happy Simming.

Just as a follow up, Seems like a number of people have also found that V-Sync is to blame for a lot of mainthread limits. Might want to ensure that is disabled.

I also said all of this in the video. I've never stated the flight characteristics were not there. I even commented on the flight model specifically. My post is in regard to your statement that I was providing false information and thwarting people from the sim. I did not see you correct that anywhere in this thread. Sorry if I missed that. "Its not up to Asobo for testing these" I'm not interested in getting into the weeds with you over this, but you were very quick to jump and accuse. I have yet to see a retraction of that. I stand by my review.

Around the 30:15 mark of the video is about as slow as I can get it on approach. pitch way up and you will regain some throttle authority and allow for a three-wheel landing, albeit no record braking landing, but short no less. hope this helps.

Hi Johnny, I disagree. I stand by my review. The Flaperons are not modeled on the aircraft although (Obviously or it wouldn't fly) are modeled in the flight model. I stated this in the video. If you are not experiencing the scenery issues then I'm glad for you, but I am not alone. I've been told that changing the Windshield effects from Ultra to medium fixes this. I haven't tested that, nor knew that while doing the review, but also refuse to lower my settings to appease a bad model or transparency texture. I don't know how you could accuse me of making posts to thwart people from the sim when all I have done is rave about the sim and its addition to the simming community. You are clearly not familiar with my posts or videos. I can appreciate that people will have varying opinions on things, but I do not appreciate the accusatorial nature of your post. It is not false information and I felt that I was trying to be completely honest with the simming community.

A huge issue with the Kitfox in my opinion. Well, two really but one might be a deal-breaker. First, the flaps aren't modeled on the aircraft. They are on the flight model, but not the visual of the plane. For a bush plane that's a big deal as you would look over for visual confirmation while flying all the time. The other glaring issue IMO is that it makes all your scenery look horrible out the glass. Go to an outside view or another plane and its sharp as a tack, but inside the scenery looks all muted and low res. Example here in this review:

4:50 mark in video watch top right. I mentioned it 3 time in the video. Mainthread goes from red to white. Hope that helps.

Nice, double fps is good in anyone's books. Glad it helped.

Let me know if this works.... worked perfectly for me same Exception code: