stearman vs. stearman

[cheezyflier]

i am trying to decide which stearman to buy, the golden age one, or the vertigo one.
looking at the vids posted by each, they both look good. vertigo decided to forgo putting sound in their video, so i don't get to use that to assist in my judgement. my eyeball tells me the golden age may be a little easier on frames, and that's a consideration. there's also quite a difference in price.

can some of you folks who have these models tell me what you think? it's pretty hard to make an informed comparison with so much information unavailable.

1) how do they fly?
2)how do they sound?
3) how do they look?
4)how are they on frame rates?

 

[pilottj]

I don't have the Vertigo yet...I kinda blew my FS funding on the P-51 and Legacy but I do have the GAS one It is quite nice, its been out a few years so might not have the latest visual tricks but it looks fine to me. I really enjoy the Stear Miss A75 repaint. I still quite enjoy the old WACO ASO from the Waco Classic package despite being older port overs. The Stearman is FSX native. Really hoping the ASO/CTO are considered by Paul and the GAS guys for eventual full FSX treatment.:salute: The only down side of the GAS stearman that I can think of is there aren't many repaints of it. The only one that I am aware of is a Cannibal Queen repaint I did for the A75 a while ago. It works fine with Accu-feel. Just open the imaginary default FSX door and you have some nice wind noise.

Cheers
TJ

 

[Mathias]

I don't have either one yet but judging from screenshots and past experience I'd say you can't go wrong with the Vertico offering.

 

[jmig]

I have the GAS version. I have enjoyed all of their aircraft. I consider them to be some of the best FSX values. That being said, I am considering buying the VS version. One can't have too many Stearmans.

On a comparison note, I think you get more models with the GAS pack. I believe there were three or four different engine packages. I know the 300 HP one really gets it going.

 

[Ian Warren]

Bias on this , course I have the Vertigo Studios Stearman ,
1) how do they fly? ...................................... Still playing and testing , one thing a may have found was the engine not cutting out inverted .
2)how do they sound? ................................ Smack on the nose , least from memory.
3) how do they look? ................................... Photo to sim , and recent photos posted , perfect !
4)how are they on frame rates? .................. Not a nudge -smooth and in the groove .
:salute:
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[modelr]

I have both, haven't had a chance to fly either enough to really pick a favorite.

VS has two models, the stock N2S/PT17, which flys very realistically, cuts out inverted, as it should, slow on the ailerons, as it should be, fly it on the wings, as it should be. Then there is the upgraded aerobaltic model. Inverted fuel system, up powered, 4 ailerons, etc. Total FUN! And very easy on frames.

Need to take them all out for a flight on same day.

 

[griphos]

I only have the GAS version. I'd have to call it more of a good freeware quality aircraft than a payware quality. The graphics don't have much detail to them, and don't take full advantage of FSX quality bump mapping or texturing. More like Ant's Tiger Moth. Flies okay. Nothing special.

And if you fly much on MP, then you should know it floods quite a bit. Not sure which bit of code multiplies keystrokes, but it sends WAY too many packets constantly. The result is others get bumped off of MP.

I'm tempted by VS's version, but what I've seen in pics so far hasn't displayed the kind of external or VC modeling I've gotten used to from people like A2A or Carenado or RealAir. It would be nice to see some more videos of it, with sound.

 

[Deano]

So don't buy it, save your money

I only have the GAS version. I'd have to call it more of a good freeware quality aircraft than a payware quality. The graphics don't have much detail to them, and don't take full advantage of FSX quality bump mapping or texturing. More like Ant's Tiger Moth. Flies okay. Nothing special.

And if you fly much on MP, then you should know it floods quite a bit. Not sure which bit of code multiplies keystrokes, but it sends WAY too many packets constantly. The result is others get bumped off of MP.

I'm tempted by VS's version, but what I've seen in pics so far hasn't displayed the kind of external or VC modeling I've gotten used to from people like A2A or Carenado or RealAir. It would be nice to see some more videos of it, with sound.

 

[danyboy21]

I have both.

GAS is a beautiful model, but she designed several years ago.

Since the release of the VS model, he took a serious "getting old".

VS textures are much nicer.

But it's just a judgment of me.

 

[Spad54]

From what I've seen Vertigo has taken it to a different level and I don't think is fair to compare the two. Ours was released in 2009 and designed with FSDS 3.5 which has limitations when it comes to FSX. The advent of David Nunez FSDSTweak has eliminated that weakness and now all our models take full advantage of what it has to offer. At GAS we build models that (a) we would like to own (b) interest us from an historical perspective and (c) hold to the core values of Bill Lyons in providing low cost, fun to fly golden age aircraft. Commercial success is not our first concern. If it was we'd have packed up our tents years ago. We are continually learning and each model builds on what the lessons learned by the previous project. With our Stearman I believe we got the visual model right, the flight dynamics close, and the textures could have been better. We were still using 1024 format and have since upgraded to 2048 and now have a professional texture artist on the team. I think it's a fair model for the price. We know in our flight simulation community, with diverse backgrounds and expectations that we can't make everyone happy.

In closing I'd recommend letting each model stand on its own and recognize the hard work that went into each.

Peace...........out

 

[griphos]

Well, I've noticed that improvement as well. I've got the new Pitcairn, and I'd rate it higher on all the levels you mentioned, textures, FD (which, I suspect, was a real trick to get right for a bird like this), and systems modeling. It's a hoot to fly. Not all the models offered have the same quality, but there are LOTS of models offered, and I'm quite happy with that one. I'm just tickled somebody tried to do an autogyro for FSX and did this well at it.

 

[bushpilot]

I dont have GAS Stearman, but I can highly recommend the Vertigo rendition. It's a blast to fly, has gorgeous HD paints and an excellent soundset. I actually disable Accufeel sound effects, whenever I fly Stearman, because I enjoy the radial sound so much. And it has nice little things, like volumetric adjustable panel spotlight. I'm looking forward to Vol2.

 

[Deano]

From what I've seen Vertigo has taken it to a different level and I don't think is fair to compare the two. Ours was released in 2009 and designed with FSDS 3.5 which has limitations when it comes to FSX. The advent of David Nunez FSDSTweak has eliminated that weakness and now all our models take full advantage of what it has to offer. At GAS we build models that (a) we would like to own (b) interest us from an historical perspective and (c) hold to the core values of Bill Lyons in providing low cost, fun to fly golden age aircraft. Commercial success is not our first concern. If it was we'd have packed up our tents years ago. We are continually learning and each model builds on what the lessons learned by the previous project. With our Stearman I believe we got the visual model right, the flight dynamics close, and the textures could have been better. We were still using 1024 format and have since upgraded to 2048 and now have a professional texture artist on the team. I think it's a fair model for the price. We know in our flight simulation community, with diverse backgrounds and expectations that we can't make everyone happy.

In closing I'd recommend letting each model stand on its own and recognize the hard work that went into each.

Peace...........out

I couldn't agree more, well said.

Vstudios model has been in development for over 2 years, that being said the GAS has much more variants than ours.

 

[jmig]

I couldn't agree more, well said.

Vstudios model has been in development for over 2 years, that being said the GAS has much more variants than ours.

So, I guess we will all just have to buy both.

You should have my order by the time you wake up, Dean.

 

[danyboy21]

From what I've seen Vertigo has taken it to a different level and I don't think is fair to compare the two. Ours was released in 2009 and designed with FSDS 3.5 which has limitations when it comes to FSX. The advent of David Nunez FSDSTweak has eliminated that weakness and now all our models take full advantage of what it has to offer. At GAS we build models that (a) we would like to own (b) interest us from an historical perspective and (c) hold to the core values of Bill Lyons in providing low cost, fun to fly golden age aircraft. Commercial success is not our first concern. If it was we'd have packed up our tents years ago. We are continually learning and each model builds on what the lessons learned by the previous project. With our Stearman I believe we got the visual model right, the flight dynamics close, and the textures could have been better. We were still using 1024 format and have since upgraded to 2048 and now have a professional texture artist on the team. I think it's a fair model for the price. We know in our flight simulation community, with diverse backgrounds and expectations that we can't make everyone happy.

In closing I'd recommend letting each model stand on its own and recognize the hard work that went into each.

Peace...........out

+ 1 Agree

 

[griphos]

So don't buy it, save your money

Don't need your help making up my mind, thanks. I do get a bit tired of developers responding to posts negatively if they don't like what's being said. I mentioned the reasons I'm still on the fence. Made it clear I don't have it yet. Suggested I'd like to see more videos to help make up my mind. I've heard good things about it and not so good things. I'd like to see more for myself and can't do so without videos, since there's not a money back policy if unsatisfied. I have two other VS aircraft: the Bearcat, which I like, and the RV-8, which I don't.

I understand that it's hard work to produce addons for FSX, and important to generate a positive buzz. I've seen your posts elsewhere about those difficulties. I'm certainly not able to do this work myself, and depend on people like you to produce quality payware. That's why I support the ones I think are doing good work sometimes by buying planes I'm not all that interested in, just to keep the cash flow positive. But I'm able to use them and it's appropriate for me to offer an assessment of them, particularly when asked. If these sites are only for fanboys, then they aren't a lot of use, are they?

I've been chided before by developers for giving my honest assessment. When someone posts asking about a plane I have, I often respond. I also often write without prompting to praise the work of developers when they do a very good job. I've done that on numerous forums about great products from the same developers I've critiqued in other posts for other products. I think that sort of feedback is useful for those who use these fora, and for the developers themselves. I certainly look for that, although it's not always easy to find.

That's what I was doing in my response to the OP question. What were you doing?

 

[Deano]

Don't need your help making up my mind, thanks. I do get a bit tired of developers responding to posts negatively if they don't like what's being said. I mentioned the reasons I'm still on the fence. Made it clear I don't have it yet. Suggested I'd like to see more videos to help make up my mind. I've heard good things about it and not so good things. I'd like to see more for myself and can't do so without videos, since there's not a money back policy if unsatisfied. I have two other VS aircraft: the Bearcat, which I like, and the RV-8, which I don't.

I understand that it's hard work to produce addons for FSX, and important to generate a positive buzz. I've seen your posts elsewhere about those difficulties. I'm certainly not able to do this work myself, and depend on people like you to produce quality payware. That's why I support the ones I think are doing good work sometimes by buying planes I'm not all that interested in, just to keep the cash flow positive. But I'm able to use them and it's appropriate for me to offer an assessment of them, particularly when asked. If these sites are only for fanboys, then they aren't a lot of use, are they?

I've been chided before by developers for giving my honest assessment. When someone posts asking about a plane I have, I often respond. I also often write without prompting to praise the work of developers when they do a very good job. I've done that on numerous forums about great products from the same developers I've critiqued in other posts for other products. I think that sort of feedback is useful for those who use these fora, and for the developers themselves. I certainly look for that, although it's not always easy to find.

That's what I was doing in my response to the OP question. What were you doing?

Nothing in particular, a simple don't buy it save your money was an honest reply on my part. There wasn't any malice in what I had written. Hence the wink

 

[P38man]

Well, I've noticed that improvement as well. I've got the new Pitcairn, and I'd rate it higher on all the levels you mentioned, textures, FD (which, I suspect, was a real trick to get right for a bird like this), and systems modeling. It's a hoot to fly. Not all the models offered have the same quality, but there are LOTS of models offered, and I'm quite happy with that one. I'm just tickled somebody tried to do an autogyro for FSX and did this well at it.

+1 the Pitcairn rocks, amazing job and flying it is a blast!

Vertigo's planes all have great modelling IMO without an exception. Hope they aren't going to shut down.

 

[cheezyflier]

they both do seem to be pretty nice, but my current rig is pretty low-end. the high def textures, i'm wondering if i'll see a frame hit, like i do with the iris christen eagle, carenado 337, and the fsd cirrus vision. i can't fly them with clouds on, and the vision, i don't ever see 20 fps below about 15,000 ft or so. all great models, but my computer has a hard time keeping up.


while i understand you developers feel they should be judged on their own merits, that totally doesn't work for me at all. with this box, i'm not going to buy both models. i am planning out a build, but haven't started yet. so maybe in the future i'd own both, but not initially.

 

[bushpilot]

On my system it's one of the more frame friendly birds, even with HD textures. There is also an option to download the installer with standard def textures.