Almost religious question...
- Thread starter worknow
- Start date
Daube
SOH-CM-2024
Although both planes are excellent addons, I would think the A2A Constellation is a better choice.
Graphically, the PMDG plane is probably a bit better than the A2A one, but both are extremely good anyways.
On the realism side, for the instruments I'm pretty sure both are on the same level on completion.
However, the A2A plane has Accusim, which means it will age and wear based on how you use it. This means you won't have a factory-fresh plane for each new flight. Instead, you'll have the plane you left, with the bad surprises you deserve.
PMDG planes can simulate failures as well of course. But a random/on purpose failure is not the same as a failure caused by the damage and wear that YOU caused during your previous flights.
Graphically, the PMDG plane is probably a bit better than the A2A one, but both are extremely good anyways.
On the realism side, for the instruments I'm pretty sure both are on the same level on completion.
However, the A2A plane has Accusim, which means it will age and wear based on how you use it. This means you won't have a factory-fresh plane for each new flight. Instead, you'll have the plane you left, with the bad surprises you deserve.
PMDG planes can simulate failures as well of course. But a random/on purpose failure is not the same as a failure caused by the damage and wear that YOU caused during your previous flights.
vora
Charter Member
As you are German I'd recommend reading the couple of comments on simflight.de's news site. There are some comments re DC6 vs Connie.
http://www.simflight.de/2017/07/20/...n-startloechern/comment-page-1/#comment-41852
TLDR for non-krauts: Connie is better due to AccuSim.
http://www.simflight.de/2017/07/20/...n-startloechern/comment-page-1/#comment-41852
TLDR for non-krauts: Connie is better due to AccuSim.
gray eagle
SOH-CM-2024
The price of each of these products = almost the price of P3D V4 Academic Version.
Retired and living on fixed income; something that gives me pause.
Retired and living on fixed income; something that gives me pause.
gman5250
Charter Member
I've got the A2A Accusim 377 & Connie and, naturally love 'em. Don't have the "other" four engine radial that just came out.
I think if I had the budget for one, I'd flip a coin and go with the result. After that, I'd start saving my lunch money for the other. lol
In pragmatic terms, I favor the Connie as the first choice because it offers a softer learning curve. I would look to the PMDG DC-6 as more of a training simulator, which is a more demanding but rewarding learning experience. The DC-6 had some interesting flight characteristics that require a thorough understanding of the airplane i.e. a very logical "terraced" climb procedure. I relish the idea of really learning the airplane from a well designed FM.
An added observation:
Beginning with FSX, then P3Dv1 through P3Dv3 the environment would not support complex aircraft and scenery. For that reason I never attempted a complex PMDG model because my system would hit the VAS wall about the time a released the parking brake or surely, somewhere mid flight.
P3Dv4, on the other hand, is extremely stable due to the 64bit architecture. Therefore, spending 30 to 45 minutes setting up a flight is justifiable when factoring in the probability of surviving a complex point to point flight without the dreaded OOM.
Right now my lunch money escrow is going towards an 11gig GPU, so the beautiful new four engine radial will have to come after that. I would anticipate a very rich and rewarding flight experience with a capable GPU and the PMDG DC-6.
IMHO
I think if I had the budget for one, I'd flip a coin and go with the result. After that, I'd start saving my lunch money for the other. lol
In pragmatic terms, I favor the Connie as the first choice because it offers a softer learning curve. I would look to the PMDG DC-6 as more of a training simulator, which is a more demanding but rewarding learning experience. The DC-6 had some interesting flight characteristics that require a thorough understanding of the airplane i.e. a very logical "terraced" climb procedure. I relish the idea of really learning the airplane from a well designed FM.
An added observation:
Beginning with FSX, then P3Dv1 through P3Dv3 the environment would not support complex aircraft and scenery. For that reason I never attempted a complex PMDG model because my system would hit the VAS wall about the time a released the parking brake or surely, somewhere mid flight.
P3Dv4, on the other hand, is extremely stable due to the 64bit architecture. Therefore, spending 30 to 45 minutes setting up a flight is justifiable when factoring in the probability of surviving a complex point to point flight without the dreaded OOM.
Right now my lunch money escrow is going towards an 11gig GPU, so the beautiful new four engine radial will have to come after that. I would anticipate a very rich and rewarding flight experience with a capable GPU and the PMDG DC-6.
IMHO
Last edited:
A2A because of the reasons mentioned earlier. My personal view is A2A is enthusiastic about their aircraft, PMDG on the other hand ,the Douglas is a back burner project even more so for the Microsoft side of sims. It may be a fine add on but after a certain amount of time, my enthusiasm mirrors the developers. I may eventually get the DC-6 but it is on my back burner.
as a owner of both
they both have a lot of pros and i would say the both have very few cons
realistically the both offer the same end result just visually different
if you like your bird with curves then the connie is the best choice
other if you dont the dc6,
One thing ive noticed over the yrs pmdg dont have sales where a2a does with that in mind if you have the money I would go get the dc6 then wait a few more months and wait for the next quarterly sale from a2a
they both have a lot of pros and i would say the both have very few cons
realistically the both offer the same end result just visually different
if you like your bird with curves then the connie is the best choice
other if you dont the dc6,
One thing ive noticed over the yrs pmdg dont have sales where a2a does with that in mind if you have the money I would go get the dc6 then wait a few more months and wait for the next quarterly sale from a2a
BendyFlyer
Charter Member
First up I think it really depends on one level as to whether your a Douglas fan or a Lockheed fan because in terms of quality they are equal as the others have outlined, one has Accusim one does not both have FE assistance, maintenance control or management etc., but the Constellation is probably more immersive.
I have both but I like them both for different reasons. The L049 by A2A will not replace the Jahn L104G/H (and those ones by the way are also excellent as far as accuracy and modelling is concerned they just do not have modern VC's with all the textural bells and whistles. As for the DC-6 my personal view is that it is not as difficult as the Connie to operate and fly. But both require you to actually spend time learning about the aeroplane, its performance, how the systems work etc.
As a tip, which ever you decide upon and get, whenever I get a new aircraft I put myself through a type rating program for it, that is I spend a lot of time reading the manuals. Then I will get used to the VC with the manual handy then move up to engine starting, taxying and general grand handling before even attempting to go flying. The I will do some take-offs, upper air work (Stalls, turns, climbs and descents) before I move onto to doing circuits and touch and goes. After that I move onto to instrument work and begin flying approaches, NDB, VOR and ILS. Finally I finish off with some emergencies, shutting and engine down etc. Basically all up between 7 to 15 hours of sim time before I start flying anywhere else. I also base myself at the same airport so I am familiar with the terrain, radios, navaids etc. I find this will also sort out any bugs, quirks or other issues with the model in the sim or my understanding of it, because I have found like all things, the better I know the bird the more I can enjoy it (and sometimes hate it too).
All in all I am a round engine nut so I like em all. Flown enough turbines for real to appreciate glass cockpits etc and unlike a lot of simmers I grew up flying aircraft with steam driven gauges and primitive navaids and complex electrical and hydraulic systems to not be daunted by them.
I have both but I like them both for different reasons. The L049 by A2A will not replace the Jahn L104G/H (and those ones by the way are also excellent as far as accuracy and modelling is concerned they just do not have modern VC's with all the textural bells and whistles. As for the DC-6 my personal view is that it is not as difficult as the Connie to operate and fly. But both require you to actually spend time learning about the aeroplane, its performance, how the systems work etc.
As a tip, which ever you decide upon and get, whenever I get a new aircraft I put myself through a type rating program for it, that is I spend a lot of time reading the manuals. Then I will get used to the VC with the manual handy then move up to engine starting, taxying and general grand handling before even attempting to go flying. The I will do some take-offs, upper air work (Stalls, turns, climbs and descents) before I move onto to doing circuits and touch and goes. After that I move onto to instrument work and begin flying approaches, NDB, VOR and ILS. Finally I finish off with some emergencies, shutting and engine down etc. Basically all up between 7 to 15 hours of sim time before I start flying anywhere else. I also base myself at the same airport so I am familiar with the terrain, radios, navaids etc. I find this will also sort out any bugs, quirks or other issues with the model in the sim or my understanding of it, because I have found like all things, the better I know the bird the more I can enjoy it (and sometimes hate it too).
All in all I am a round engine nut so I like em all. Flown enough turbines for real to appreciate glass cockpits etc and unlike a lot of simmers I grew up flying aircraft with steam driven gauges and primitive navaids and complex electrical and hydraulic systems to not be daunted by them.
Alan_A
Charter Member
Not much to add to the excellent observations already posted (especially gman 5250 and BendyFlyer, who really nailed the differences). Just a couple of notes - the choice also comes down to whether you're nostalgic or not. The A2A Connie really works best as a simulation of a period airliner - the Captain of the Ship experience is about operating an airliner in mainline service. It's true that you can turn off the career mode and add some modern equipment, but there are compromises - for example, the period autopilot is pretty limited, but to add capabilities like altitude hold, you've got to opt for the default autopilot as a popup, so there's some loss of immersion. The DC-6, on the other hand, works better as a contemporary working airplane. They based it on an updated aircraft (with GPS and more modern radios) that served in Namibia. They also include a freighter variant (nice touch!) that would fit well in the Everts Air Cargo fleet. While there are period liveries available, the flight deck is distinctly modern (which as usual has become the subject of a debate over at Avsim...)
For flight modeling, I'd have to give it to the DC-6 - an Alexander Metzger FDE is hard to beat. But keep in mind that the DC-6 is a faster airplane that, while it's more stable, is also more demanding in climb and descent, along the lines gman suggests.
Each one is true to its family. The DC-6 is more PMDG-like, with a need for operational discipline and a flight engineer who goes through flows and checklists. The Connie is more A2A-like - a bit warmer, more about the left-seat experience (it's similar in some respects to the Aerosoft Airbus series, too). System depth is similar but there are distinctions - the A2A is better at engine modeling (with primer lines modeled for primer-only starts) while the PMDG requires more complex fuel management on long hauls.
Somebody said that only the Connie punishes you for your actions, thanks to Accu-Sim. Not so - the DC-6 also involves persistent wear and service-based failures. But only the A2A has the career mode and the passenger/cabin service element.
Of course I'm going to tell you to get both. And in fact, I just did. But I hope the details help with your choice.
For flight modeling, I'd have to give it to the DC-6 - an Alexander Metzger FDE is hard to beat. But keep in mind that the DC-6 is a faster airplane that, while it's more stable, is also more demanding in climb and descent, along the lines gman suggests.
Each one is true to its family. The DC-6 is more PMDG-like, with a need for operational discipline and a flight engineer who goes through flows and checklists. The Connie is more A2A-like - a bit warmer, more about the left-seat experience (it's similar in some respects to the Aerosoft Airbus series, too). System depth is similar but there are distinctions - the A2A is better at engine modeling (with primer lines modeled for primer-only starts) while the PMDG requires more complex fuel management on long hauls.
Somebody said that only the Connie punishes you for your actions, thanks to Accu-Sim. Not so - the DC-6 also involves persistent wear and service-based failures. But only the A2A has the career mode and the passenger/cabin service element.
Of course I'm going to tell you to get both. And in fact, I just did. But I hope the details help with your choice.