Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Which payware DC 3 is the best for FSX?

  1. #11

    Default

    Stusue

    The modified DC-3 files are available from this guy's website: http://www.metzgergva.de/site/index....mid=39&lang=en

    He has tweaked quite a fex of the stock FSX models as well if you use them. I have had no issues or problems with the changes made.

    Reggie is correct about the DC-3 most of what we have remaining around the world and that were used extensively by just about everybody you can name for some type of flying operation were actually ex military C-47's and commonly just called the DC-3.

    If you want all the information you want about the DC-3 then DC-3 Airways is the place to go if they don't have the data or files then they have links to some one who does. DC-3 Airways is a great place to be a member if your a DC-3 C-47 fan and they have no shortage of flights, missions etc for you to tray including the infamous WWII Hump, Atlantic and Pacific flight routes. They even have the routes for most of the DC-3 operators and run a World Rally every year in October which is great fun to be part of, 12 flights over 12 days or so all over the world in various conditions. If you want to get a handle on simming with the DC-3 then you can take up the training package they have made and fly the various flights they have set up until you become proficient with the old girl.

    I think the MAAM Sim C-47/DC-3 is the favourite bird over at DC-3 Airways. I really like the MAAM Sim version and the guys who developed it are actually a museum crew in the US dedicated to keeping a C-47 flying for real. Check out there web site as well they have heaps of information.

    Me? my C-47/DC-3's are all of the Aussie variety, RAAF, TAA , Ansett, Qantas etc. Just thats where I live and the ones I remember the best. (Oh and some Japanese versions as I do a lot of sim flying in Japan too).

    Have fun.

  2. #12

    Default

    I agree with ya there oldcrusty. The MAAM still the best and realistic. I fly the cranky old Buffalo Joe version. Nice post! Each yr , the older I get, the lower and slower I go. A king Air is high and fast for me anymore. I once heard a comment about fight simming. " All the kids start out wanting to fly 747's and when they start to get old they are perfectly content with a 172."
    Last edited by torkermax; 09-26-2012 at 10:25 PM.
    CPU: I7 4790K @ 4.5 ghz, GPU and CPU water cooled
    GPU: Gigabyte GTX 970
    MEM: Gskill Rippjaw 1866 17900
    MB: Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z97X

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Medford, Oregon
    Posts
    494

    Default

    I am looking to buy one of the planes mentioned here.

    95% of the time, I use the VC view and put a premium on having a high quality panel. What I have gotten used to are the panels that you get from developers such as A2A or Sibwings.

    I looked at the websites of MAAM for the DC-3 and Flight1 for the DC-2. The MAAM was made for FS2002 and FS2004 and says it will work
    in FSX. The DC-2 was first made for FS2004 but also works in FSX.
    It is hard to tell from the screen previews just how clear the gauges are. I no longer have FS2004 installed mainly because the panels don't look anywhere as clear as the panels that being made for FSX in the last few years.

    The only plane mentioned here that was made for FSX is the Justflight DC-3 that most people don't think is as good as the MAAM or the Flight! DC-2.

    Being as I use the VC view most of the time, would I most likely be dissapointed with the MAAM or Flight1 DC-2?

    Thanks for any opinions.

  4. #14

    Default

    The JF DC-3 looks amazing and flies well... After flying one through the World Rally, it seems a little slower and heavier on the fuel than the MAAM's most folks seem to have been using, but that could be just down to me too! I've yet to invest in a MAAM for FSX (used to have it for FS2002 many moons ago!) so I can't give a direct comparison, but I'm generally very happy with the JF - albeit with a completely different 2D panel...

    The big problem most people have with the JF is it's VC is too clean looking - that's just a matter of weathering the textures. What is annoying about it is due to it's modelling it's quite hard to get a decent view out the cockpit while keeping an eye on the gauges... Normally I use a custom 2d panel for flying and accurately navigating her and use the VC for sightseeing during long legs...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25

    Default

    The definitive DC-3 hasn't been released yet, sadly. Either they lack the fidelity and "feel" of the real aircraft, or they just don't cut it graphically. Choosing one is thus a matter of which compromises you are willing to make. I've had them all, uninstalled them all and just settle for the default DC-3 with a custom sound package (compiled from several different ones).

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rudyjo View Post
    I am looking to buy one of the planes mentioned here.

    95% of the time, I use the VC view and put a premium on having a high quality panel. What I have gotten used to are the panels that you get from developers such as A2A or Sibwings.

    I looked at the websites of MAAM for the DC-3 and Flight1 for the DC-2. The MAAM was made for FS2002 and FS2004 and says it will work
    in FSX. The DC-2 was first made for FS2004 but also works in FSX.
    It is hard to tell from the screen previews just how clear the gauges are. I no longer have FS2004 installed mainly because the panels don't look anywhere as clear as the panels that being made for FSX in the last few years.

    The only plane mentioned here that was made for FSX is the Justflight DC-3 that most people don't think is as good as the MAAM or the Flight! DC-2.

    Being as I use the VC view most of the time, would I most likely be dissapointed with the MAAM or Flight1 DC-2?

    Thanks for any opinions.
    I guess the fact you have a money back guarantee with the DC-2 would suggest this is the first one to try. If I get a chance, I'll post a shot of the VC as you'd expect to see it in use i.e. not these silly bloody panoramic shots that people take. As far as I know, the DC-2 for FSX is a full FSX model, not a port over of the FS2004 one.

    Either way, give it a try because you can't loose if it's not what you're after. You will need to accept that it has a lot of realistic features that do have to be used i.e. this isn't a ctrl+e and hit full power kind of add-on.
    Cheers

    Paul Golding
    Dreamfleet/Flight1 727 & 727X Developer

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Medford, Oregon
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Thanks for the replies. Looking forward to the VC panel shot.

    I downloaded the free demo of the DC-3 from Justflight, I agree, it is a little too clean. I would prefer a panel in a 50 year old plane to look like it has been used. The demo only allows you to fly up to 1000ft , has only one texture and most of the effects don't work.
    If I flew mostly from an external view, this would be a very nice plane.

    The best panel I have, one that really looks beat up, is the Sibwings Birddog.

  8. #18

    Default

    Took a look at the DC-2 on the Flight1 site and from there jumped to the developers site (Uiver) and looked at everything including the pdf of the manual....... WOW ! Amazing amount of detail in modelling the flight systems. The first video on the video page showing taxing, takeoff and landing with a 10 knot crosswind was impressive. Almost hit "buy" at that moment. Isn't there a DC-3 out there close to this good ? I have the JF which I thought was decent till now.

  9. #19

    Default

    All things being equal the JF gets my vote since it has Glynis Johns as the stewardess, the way she looked in 'No Highway in the Sky', the Jimmy Stewart movie about plane tails falling off. I think the movie was inspired by the Comet crashes.

    Keep your gaspar open-

  10. #20

    Default

    RUDYO, None of the DC-3's have a perfect VC. I have given this considerable thought over time having flown in the real thing over the years. I guess they are all compromises and based on the default FSX DC-3. I thought the JF version had the most realistic version on one level (but too clean and plastic looking for me) but what cruelled it for me was the lack of perspective when you shift views about the cockpit and the reference points are all out to my mind which makes the perspective weird and not at all like the real thing. From discussion with the guys over at DC-3 Airways it seems the cockpit is hard to change or modify and it has a lot to do with the original air and mdl files in the default DC-3 upon which most are based. My basic test for any VC is to move the view down to the seat and adjust the view so the seat is underneath me when I look down and then pan up and around to see what it looks like, the mark of a good model is you should get a view like in the real aeroplane, very few models are that good and distortions or inaccurate model design shows up really quickly. But I still am grateful people have had a go, because it is beyond my skills so I am not that critical.

    You can play around with the default cockpit using different textures and instrument fit outs and there are a few mods about from different authors and modellers that work pretty well, including some good stuff for the Jahn DC-3/C-47. The MAAM model and VC is the most authentic in look and feel and the FSX quality varies, so for example for some reason the military version has a good cockpit and cabin that works properly in VC mode but the civil version has textures missing and gaps for some reason.

    As I said in an earlier post no two DC-3's were alike inside and they even would vary in fitout and colour in the same airline. This makes the definitive DC-3 cockpit almost impossible to achieve in VC mode. Have a look around the net for cockpit photos of the old girl and you will see what I mean, they are all different in lots of funny ways. That being said the default DC-3 cockpit is actually not a bad rendition of the aeroplane but very very basic but it still looks fine too me and changing views works ok. The overhead and roof panel and controls are tacky and don't work well but this area seems to defy every body's attempts at modification change etc. So in the end it is a compromise. You can change some stuff about and I have made a number of mods to my default DC-3 panel incorporating bits and pieces on the web and here at FlightSim to get an better looking a more realistic cockpit for the airline I have the most of Trans Australian Airlines (TAA) but it still is not as good as the MAAM cockpit overall. Bottom line is your not going to get a realy great VC with any DC-3 in terms of gauges and textures.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-06-2017, 05:10 AM
  2. Payware-Which is the best?
    By vegsder in forum FSX
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 01:36 PM
  3. Payware Aircraft-Which are the best Companies?
    By Flying papab in forum FSX
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-06-2008, 04:00 AM
  4. Which is the best payware 737?
    By Tomahawk674 in forum FS2004
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 04:13 PM
  5. Freeware / Payware. My best of the best
    By illuminate in forum MSFS Screen Shot Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-25-2005, 06:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •