Straight Tail Cessna 172 released...

[EMatheson]

here: http://www.simflight3d.com/

I don't have FSX, so I can't try it out for y'all... but I remember that when the WiP pictures of this aircraft were posted, there was much excitement - I found it a bit odd that it hasn't been mentioned yet here...

 

[cheezyflier]

cool!

 

[Roger]

I've checked out the site and the gallery. The straight tail interests me but the vc shots are dark and indestinct. If I'm paying over $20 I need to see that the vc is as good at least as the FsX default aircraft.

 

[gajit]

I've checked out the site and the gallery. The straight tail interests me but the vc shots are dark and indestinct. If I'm paying over $20 I need to see that the vc is as good at least as the FsX default aircraft.

I agree with that 100% I would not risk a purchase based on those shots either.

 

[pbearsailor]

I kinda like it. :ernae:

Great to have a straight tail available. Simple airplane with a simple panel, but I think it's ok. Detail is pretty good to me. Like the sight gauges for the fuel tanks and the weathering from fuel leaks on the fuel caps.

Just flown it a little. Couldn't get my screens to upload, maybe that's still broken on the forum? Only real downer seems the sound, but it looks like it uses mostly default 172 sound and I've modded mine, so that may be it.

Keeper for me.

cheers,
steve

 

[fsafranek]

Sweet, and they take paypal. Panel must match the one they fly where they live, it isn't quite as sparse as the one I'm familiar with. Carpet looks to be the same color though.

I will probably buy it just to have a straight tailed 172 of the correct vintage (if not exact year). But would also like to see some in game shots from an outside party if anyone has made the plunge yet.

 

[Roger]

Yes there must be someone with a Photobucket account who can show some screeies?

 

[glennc]

I can't show screenies but I can say - it would be an OK freeware product. Externally, it's not too bad. The VC is mostly OK except for the panel. It's very fuzzy. I know there are some settings in panel.cfg may sharpen it up - if I could remember which ones. Most of the gauges are default except for the engine and fuel gauges. The animations are not at all bad. The flight model feels OK - but it's been a very long time since I got my private certificate using a 1959 model for the check ride in 1968.

My bottom line is this: For a first effort from this developer there is some promise. If my $22 helps him move to his next product, it's worth it. It'll be fun to see what's next.

So, that's my first flight review. My opinions tend to change after a couple more flights so I may be back.

Second Flight a little later: I'm feeling better about the flight model - but the animation for the ailerons are backwards. He is in good company on that.

What the old man meant to put across: My "OK" means very statisfactory. One animation I really like is the oil check and dipstick.

Glenn

 

[bkumanchik]

Ooops!

Thanks for catching that,

Ailerons animations ARE backwards, I'll fix that ASAP and place an update on the site, also I notices the white nav light on the rudder flickers for some reason.

Brian Kumanchik
SimFlight3D

 

[Lionheart]

Great looking interior and nice work on handling the exterior shine of the aluminum skins!



Good looking classic!




Bill

 

[arrowmaker]

Here are a few images taken from the online gallery:

Full gallery can be found here:

http://www.simflight3d.com/55F_gallery/55F_Gallery.html

 

[txnetcop]

Well I'm torn on this model. I love the paint. I kinda like the flight model but it seems quirky on landing. I have flown this aircraft many times in real life and it does not give exactly the same impression on landing, however it is hard to translate real life pilotage on an inexpensive simulator, some mfgs have done a great job at it though in payware and freeware-Piglet and Milton especially.

Many of the knobs and parts of the panel look cut and paste, but the interior as a whole is pretty good. It did not look like the temp gauge worked just a cut and paste. Fuzzy panel and hard to read on the fly(landing). Ailerons are backwards! It certainly is a pretty little thing in flight. I could see the rear strobe through the enclosed cabin in the rear. I did not like the aliased sound for the money spent.

I like some of the animations. I was disappointed that the pilot was not. Would I buy this again at this price? No, Carenado offers better product at less than $25.00, but it would be a great deal at less than $20.00. However, if the money I paid helps you with better development then it will be worth seeing what you turn out. You certainly turned out a pretty fair first effort.
Ted

 

[gajit]

Is the Pilot too small in scale?

 

[fsafranek]

Is the Pilot too small in scale?

Not sure. Put two large-boned crew in there and I can tell better.

 

[BananaBob]

I just requested it for exchange of some photoreal paints for it, not that those are bad at all, looks like a good model too.

 

[glennc]

Brian, Thanks - That kind of service verifies my contribution found a good home.

Glenn

 

[Roger]

Some better images here at Fsim pilot shop:

http://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=2077

 

[fsafranek]

I like it. The first thing I checked was the flaps. So nice to see flaps that move correctly and not hear any electric motor sounds. It flies about right, bouncing and getting tossed around by weather. Got to love that. Many details in the cockpit that you wouldn't know about or include unless you had spent some time in one.

After getting a closer look I'd say the pilot is spot on. It is a tight fit to put two large adults side by side so typically the right side seat is positioned back a bit -- easier to get in that way also.

Would love to see one with the landing gear pants removed. Same with the GPS bump on the roof. We use a Garmin 196 with it's attached antenna, rigged a mount on the panel for it.

Textures and schemes are nice. Will have to shoot some photos and make a copy of the one we fly -- overall bare metal with white wing and black tail control surfaces. Small registration on tail just like this one.

Do install the update. Besides fixing the reversed aileron animation it stops the tail light from showing through the rear of the cockpit.

I'm excited about this. Going back to flying her now.
:ernae:

 

[glennc]

Brian,

I hope I'm not being a pain, but I think there is still a problem with the ailerons. They are correct now when viewed externally, but not fixed when viewed from the VC. It almost made me airsick.

I did some checking (the web is my friend). Two of the four airplanes I spent my student days in (both of the 172's) are still registered. The one I had my private check ride in was a 1960 (not 1959) model. That's why I remember it with the swept tail. It's in Michigan now. The other is a 1966 model now in Washington State. One of the 150's was destroyed in a double fatality accident - one was my CFI - of course, that's still in my memory. The other is not on anything I can find. Wow. I lost that old log book some time ago but I think I remember the reg numbers right.

All of the above makes me really fascinated with your airplane. The yellow one is closest to the paint I remember. The Carenado 172N is closer to the 1966 model. This is a trip down history - and for that I thank you. If it looks good and fly's well, you have succeeded.

Glenn

 

[Reddog]

I like it, have a little over 2 hours in it now and the only thing I wish was changed was to get rid of the yoke in the vc, my pet peeve with a lot of a/c that have them in the VC. They most often hid gauges and/or switches that u need and it servers no purpose at all.