The 310 does not work on the Xbox… yet. Once Asobo/MS has fixed the WASM issue, we will see if it can be put on.
2 Likes
For me the 310 is THE perfect VFR plane.
With some experience landing strips down to 2000ft are mostly no problem. Decent speed, good avionics, perfect state saving with wear and tear of the systems and plane.
The only bummer is the view out of the cockpit to ground due to the engines and the wingtip tanks.
2 Likes
Nail on the head. Now that I found the performance fixes for the tns gtnxi the 414 with dual unit is absolutely amazing.
1 Like
Do either of these give a significant fps hit? Asking as I only have a modest pc but am able to get 40fps on high settings away from photorealistic. I have the Kodiak and that seems ok.
1 Like
They are both pretty good.
Excellent, thanks.
Whats the state of the 310R today? Is it compatible with latest MS 430/530 GPS? I get all sorts of weird things going on. Not following autopilot etc… =( So sad, cause its a really fine aircraft. Its my favorite GA besides the old Mooney M20R, which future Im also unsure of. =/
It’s still terrific. I’ve had zero problems with the autopilot or anything else really. Make sure you have the GNS 530 package from the marketplace as the C310 isn’t yet compatible with the native version. But that package has worked fine for me.
It‘s as good as always. using the TDS 750 though here, works like a charm.
Now we just need to have somebody create some zombie humanoids for MSFS, for those people who enjoy getting creeped out… 
I’ve gotta say there’s devs out there who think you can’t program co-pilot’s / passengers etc to show (or Asobo doesn’t allow it or some such), and yet there’s products out where it’s being done… I’m one of those people who want the passengers visible.
1 Like
I’m currently trying to decide between the two. On one hand the 414 is pressurized and fast, but I already have the 737 for high altitude flights. On the other hand the C310 has the ownership aspect built in, and it does well at lower altitudes. Tough choice.
1 Like
I see. So…there this version installed in FS2020, and then there is some update to make the 430/530 up to par with (…something?). Its when I have installed this newer (still the free version) gps the problems occours.
If you can afford both, get both. I initially thought they were (at least looked like they would be) too similar. Already owned the 310R and I got friendly-ly persuaded to get the 414 as well and am very glad I did. They are really quite different in feel and I regularly fly both now. Don’t know which I prefer, they are both excellent.
The 414 feels a bit heavier in flight but has more subtle landings (actually I think the best landing control of any aircraft I’ve tried), it feels more “well built” inside and a bit more complex and solid (not the modelling, I mean how it represents the real thing - both are impeccably created in the sim!), the 310 feels more responsive and has more challenging landings and a bit more bare bones cockpit - not in a negative way, more like a “not as plush or dense as the 414” way. Hope that helps but I doubt you’d regret either or both.
2 Likes
Can’t comment on the 414, but I’ve had the 310R for about a month now and am really enjoying it. It forces you to fly and manage the systems properly, especially when you’re dealing with turbulence. It wants to fly fast, so you really have to keep the speed up on landings until the last moment.
I’m running it with the PMS50 GTN750 (premium edition) on the around-the-world tour right now and am finding that navigation system to be very useful.
3 Likes
I know especially early on everyone was dogging the 414 because it was still in beta but I gotta say that now it is a MUCH better plane! Much more interesting cockpit, has all the flight bag stuff of the 310r minus the failure chances, and has a better range.
Plus for some reason the 310r gets an oversteer game over screen on a 1,000 ft/m decent.
Excuse me???
Edit: Oh, does that mean “Game-over screen”? IOW, a “you crashed” error from the sim? I still don’t understand what the “oversteer” error is on a descent. Did you mean overstress (I assume a “stupid phone” autocorrect error?) Sorry, the sentence through me for a loop, lol.
Assuming they mean overspeed? But even so not noticed any issues with descent in the first few days of ownership?
I have the 414 also, which is really nice and was my favourite. I bought the 414 several months ago (wanted the 310 as had great reviews and I prefer the design) and it’s great, beautifully modelled and flies nice. Sounds great. I know it’s the new shiny thing in my hanger but the 310 is Def fave for now and I expect for quite a while yet. It does feel quite “alive” in flight as someone said, and the tip tanks do seem to affect the roll characteristics.
Not sure I’d describe the cockpit as vastly more interesting though? What am I looking for?
IMO not vastly better than the 310, that’s quite a statement, I appreciate just a point of view, as valid as mine, but I’d question on what basis?
1 Like
Ah, Overspeed would make more sense if you didn’t manage your forward speed well enough. Can’t just put the nose down and go for it. My only real experience is in Arrows and Cherokees and Warriors and Cessna 172’s and 152’s, even in those planes have to throttle back for just a 500 ft/min descent to not overspeed.
I’m not suggesting that perhaps this model is not too slippery, but, higher performance aircraft are notorious for having to be very careful to manage speed. Things happen fast at higher speeds.
IDK it may be overspeed, for the most part, I was more just ■■■■■■ because of all the work of having to set everything up multiple times for it to suddenly just end like that. And i certainly get having to watch speed while descending and all that, but 1,000 ft/m isn’t exactly a steep descent. Even if at full power if 1,000 ft/m is going to have a plane break up in air even without a warning, that’s not a plane I want to fly on lol.
Now with that being said one of the big drawbacks of the 414 is that you can fly right into a building and just bounce off. So a bit of the opposite extreme. I do also wish that the 414 battery and alternator switches were mappable as well. Even though, between the longer range, better-looking avionics (the 310 doesn’t have two full 750 screens like the 414) and having a sim flight plan that actually loads in the plane, I have to pick the 414.
1000 ft / min is actually a relatively steep descent for a small GA piston plane. Even the E190 I was in as a passenger in last night was descending at 500 ft / min over Long Island and Rhode Island as we approached Logan (though I imagine that has more to do with passenger comfort and ATC issues than the plane).
Technically, however, the damage you suffered has nothing to do with the descent speed per se, it’s all about your forward speed and not getting into the red and ripping your wings off. You’re not saying it, but I hope you were pulling back on the throttle when you went into your descent? Then it becomes a balance between having not pulling too far back on the throttle (engine damage issues due to shock cooling) and not descending as fast as you’d like.
However, I’m surprised you said that the C414 you can bounce of a building. That would only be true if you had sim damage turned off. Are you saying that Milviz caused the overspeed “You crashed” stoppage of flight?, or did you have the sim damage detection turned on for the C310 and not the C414?
Due to other issues, I usually fly with Sim structure damage turned off. It’s just not at all realistic.
1 Like