310R vs C-414

User Support Hub Aircraft & Systems
81

Yes, and descending at close to or above Vne at low altitude in not necessarily smooth air will kill you. And I have to wonder why anyone would say that they should be able to just ignore the physics because another plane doesn’t model the physics.

The point here is, while the systems of the Chancellor are on par with those of the C310, the damage modeling is not, the C414 does not have any. So comparing them seems weird to me. Especially so because you can turn off damage modeling in the C310 and make them equal. So what are we even discussing?

It’s also weird to me that we discuss the “feel” of airplanes in the sim when there is no physical feedback, and the throw of most controllers is miniscule compared to that of the yoke in the real plane. How do we discuss feel without feedback? Granted, it can be faked in certain ways, actually making it unrealistic, but “feeling” better. But in doing that, they now have to deal with the “fudging it wrong so it’s right” across a very wide range of controllers, how’s that going to work for everyone? And then you pay for that compromise elsewhere in the modeling. So what’s a developer to do?

We ask for realism, and no matter which side the developers choose, they lose.

And I can only imagine that the reason I don’t experience this “twitchiness” is because, even though I fly with a Logitech Extreme3D pro joystick (an “offending” low-range-of-motion controller prone to over-control), I put my elevator trim on its throttle axis I’m not using, and I do most of my pitch control with trim, kind of amazingly just like when I really fly (Warriors these days) :wink: , which naturally avoids over-controlling with the joystick. Flying in the sim when I was adjusting trim with up and down buttons was painful and brutal. Putting it on an axis made all the difference in my flying experience in MSFS.

Now, I’ll also grant that the developers make mistakes as well. For instance, it was just noticed that the latest rev of the JF Warrior, the developer put the area of the stabilator (there is no horizontal stabilizer on a Warrior, it’s essentially a full moving elevator) in both the horizontal stabilizer (which it doesn’t really have), and then again in the elevator. I don’t see how that could possibly work well without lots of fudging of other parameters. It has to be a mistake. But, who knows, maybe the did it on purpose (and fudged their way out someplace else) (but then why is it .1 on two of their Cherokees, and 3.5 on the other two?)? So there is very often lots of room for improvement.

Anyway, here we are.

2 Likes
82

From the manual:

image

1 Like
83

Sorry, I realize I don’t directly respond to this, well, I did, but, just to be clear… If the C414 doesn’t model damage, and the C310 does… do you understand the issue?

The developer has to put the terms into the flight_model.cfg for MSFS to recognize that damage has happened. If FSW didn’t do this, then it won’t happen. If you’re not seeing the same reaction between the planes, there’s something different in the modeling… If you don’t want to follow actual procedures, which is 95% likely what’s going on, and that is PERFECTLY FINE, turn off damage modeling. That’s all there is to it. I’m not being defensive here for either party, just trying to explain what’s going on.

For instance, there’s a flap damage speed term… a lot of developers set this to zero, or some really high unrealistic speed. If that’s true, it’s impossible to damage the flaps. They believe that most customers don’t really want to damage their plane just because they put the flaps down 5 knots faster than the damage speed. Which, in real life, would not likely damage the flaps anyway. There is a safety factor on that in the POH, because, well, people are people…

1 Like
84

Most impressed with the 414 and likewise the 310. In short I would just say buy both if possible. You won’t be unhappy with either and both will make you smile. Ultimately it’s a personal decision based on preference and wallet.

Personally I’ve always like the design of the C 310 so it’s naturally what I prefer.

In respect of what has been suggested about unrealistic damage:

  1. Far from clear what real world knowledge of airframe failure is being drawn upon here in some comments

  2. Cessna 310: that 1000 ft/min should be possible without crash: I’ve just finished a flight over Paris starting at approx 5000ft. Dropped the throttle to just above the landing gear prompt beep.

Briefly for a few seconds were between 2000-2500 ft /min descent. No issues, speed got as high as 150.

For a lengthy (couple of thousand feet?)period I was happily descending at 1000 ft per min. No issue.

  1. that to be realistic there should be a warning of overspeed:
    I don’t have that knowledge but suspect not all planes do. -However- During the above mentioned descent I accidentally reached approx 200 knots or thereabouts. Suddenly I heard some worrying sounds of creaking and groaning metal, causing me to gently level of the descent. Was impressed with this as didn’t know it was there having not pushed it to the limits.

Point being there actually was an audible warning of aircraft stress, and by not pulling too many G’s in the process I corrected and no crash.

TLDR:
+The Milviz 310 easily descends beyond 1000ft per min.
+The 310 will audibly warn you if you near overstress limits

2 Likes
85

Agreed, and by “feel” I do not mean the actual forces on the joystick. What I mean is “to what extend does the model provide the illusion and impression of flying the real airplane”. Of course it is a very subjective opinion, and highly dependent on the hardware setup one might have, but, for example, if very small control inputs result in large attitude deviations, then this impression is very much diminished. On that front, for me, the 414 scores significantly higher than the 310.

This might be one of the reasons why we have a different opinion on this topic–I use primarily the elevator to control the aircraft pitch.

1 Like
86

Exactly, I don’t think a lot of simmers realize how important elevator trim (and other trim) is to controlling an airplane when really flying. I was miserable before I figured out I could use an axis to control trim, and so happy I figured it out and I happened to have an extra one to use for it.

It’s not often biographies of pilots go into detail of their actions while dog fighting, but, for those that do, back in the days before fly by wire, you realize that they aren’t just throwing their flight stick around, they’re actually also turning and turning on the trim, in all three axes, while they’re trying to get on the tail of the plane in front, or behind, them…

87

With some further experimentation, I have managed to get some damage scenarios with the 414.

The landing gear gets damaged on trees, and it WILL overstress in a steep enough dive. Now why it did not have any issues at the same rates that the 310r did, who knows? Maybe its just not modeled to the same extensiveness of the 310r.

To your point on the true pull of yokes compared to any joystick in the game, that does go to my desire for more of a warning for certain things. Ignoring the fact that the plane has a stall warning but not an overspeed warning (yes I know there’s AOA to figure in stalls and not just speed) there are other aspects of actual flying that I’m sure clue you in to things much more than a simulator can.

88

It is a lot easier to overspeed in a simulator as all the minor cues (like everything shaking, depending on aircraft of course) that tend to make you wary and uneasy about going any faster are missing in a sim.

Of course what MSFS does miss is the effects of overspeed which vary from aircraft to aircraft. Control surfaces can jam, or depart company to make their own way home, things can bend, in the V-Tail Bonanza the entre tail tended to come off.

89

:rofl::rofl::rofl: exactly…

You definitely don’t read or see in film (in brackets) the less exciting details of a dogfight…

The bogie mig 21 darted to the left, I instinctively reacted to his actions in my F8 (calmly trimming 0.2 elevator and used a 1.6 right aileron trim to compensate along with a very slight turn of the rudder trim…) I placed my guns right on him and let a little ripple of 20mms (of course trimming a bit of down elevator to compensate for the rising of the nose due to the upward actions of the cannon fire, along with a bit of aileron and rudder trim in anticipation of a maneuver to avoid debre)

2 Likes
90

Do you have all the crash, airframe and engine stress damage stuff enabled in the sims assist settings?

I think the sounds you get when overspeed for example in the 310 is cool, but I think having these damage settings disabled makes me fly the 310 a little unrealistically hard, so I may enable them again so It makes me fly the aircraft more carefully.

91

This is a great insight. I noticed going back and forth between my airplane and the sim, that in the sim it is way too easy to skip steps, steps that you can not skip when really flying. So I make a point of, when I’m in the sim, making sure I do every step. So it’s really important to me, when flying a “new” plane to me in the sim to get the real POH and study it and the checklists, and make sure I do every step in the checklist, even if it’s not modeled in the sim per se.

And, as I noted above, it’s also really important to remember how different our controllers are to those in the plane, and that there’s no feedback, which makes it super easy, like, without even thinking about it, trying to apply forces to the plane that you really can’t do in real life.

2 Likes
92

Yes, I always have all damage modelled. I must admit I have been babying it a bit probably because of that and care with engine mixture, rpm etc, so it was only to show it is capable of a greater flight envelope than the earlier poster suggested that I tried pushing it towards its limits, that’s when I felt the shake and heard the worrying stress sounds!

3 Likes
93

Both, the 310 and the 414 are very good airplanes. Adding to everything that has been said so far about their strengths and weaknesses, there are two minor additional negative points that I think haven’t been addressed.

MilViz/Blackbird has a very defensive attitude when reacting to criticism, brushing it away with “that’s not possible, our plane has been tested by real world pilots”. Such an attitude doesn’t sit well with me. Also, they said that going forward they will no longer support 3rd party avionics like the PMS/TDS.

The 414 is currently only available through FlySimWare’s webshop. Downloading the plane and updates proved to be painfully slow and often doesn’t work at all and you have to restart from the beginning. For example it takes more than 1 hour to download the 1.4GB on my end, which is quite annoying. Has been like this since the very first beta release.

2 Likes
94

It’s also available via the Marketplace.

95

Yes, you’re absolutely right. I missed that.

1 Like
96

Ive never had any issues downloading update from FlySimWhere…. Usual download is about 1-2 minutes, install (including uninstalling the older version), less than 5 minutes…. Then up and running. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
97

Where did they say that? I’ve have never read that anywhere.

98

On their official forums. I don’t know if you’re able to access it though without making an account.

https://milviz.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14008

99

Nope, so a copy/paste of what they said or a screenshot would be much more helpful.

100

It’s on this very forum.

1 Like