I am trying to decide between these two aircraft for my next purchase. I was always set on the A2A Aerostar when I progressed from the Comanche, but now the Black Square Baron has released and is getting rave reviews.
I like the state persistence of A2A products, and the wear and tear that occurs over time, especially if you don’t maintain your aircraft, but it looks like Black Square has this too?
I always believed that Accusim made the A2A products stand out in terms of realism, but I’m seeing some posts disappointed with the flight model? I don’t know if that’s just because they were written during the early access period.
So tell me, for those that have tried both: Which do you recommend, and why?
1 Like
Short version: you’re not going to be disappointed with either.
Mission-wise, where the Aerostar has an advantage is speed in the low to mid altitudes and useful load. The Baron has a pressurized variant that can take advantage of better TAS at higher altitudes without worrying about hypoxia. However, if mission and performance are the order of the day, I’d recommend the Duke, but I digress.
Aesthetic-wise, the Aerostar has better visibility from the cockpit as it’s forward of the engines. I like the panel of the Baron just a little more, though. There’s a je ne sais quoi to the BlackSquare panels that makes them feel a little more comfy. If I’m flying hard IFR, I definitely would choose BS, but that’s partially because it has more stuff and the Aerostar sticks to the roots of its era - there’s a bit of an intended vintage vibe to it that suits it well. Either way, neither will disappoint, just a matter of taste/preference. Both have excellent sounds. Both handle well. Both have a lot of attention to detail. I think A2A handles dirt really well, persistently and cumulatively.
Extras - again A2A does really well with persistence. You feel like you own the plane. You have to treat the plane well, perform maintenance, and the preflight actually matters. BS accomplishes this by using mean time between failure (MTBF), meaning it keeps track of your hours and there is a random chance something will break based on, well, odds really. You can speed up that MTBF rate or arm time-based failures as well. Both have a great EFB, with A2A giving you a lot of flexible options, and again maintenance, working schematics, engine analysis, etc. The aesthetics of BS’s EFB are second to none - with multi-color schematics that could almost be used for teaching and learning how engines, cabin pressurization, and electrical systems work.
Marketing-wise, BS is offering some amazing bundles and many of their planes include multiple variants that add a bit of variety, season to taste and all that.
Can’t go wrong with either.
13 Likes
Think of it this way:
The Aerostar is more like an Oldtimer. You need to maintain it. The state saving is par to none in the sim. You get a real sense of ownership if you want to. The walkaround is just exceptionel and with a lot of features besides the MSFS 2024 standard stuff. For me, the flight model seems also more alive than the flight models of Blacksquare. But this is purely subjective.
The BS planes don’t feel like Oldtimers, they feel like new planes. This is mostly because they aren’t that old but also due to the limited state saving and what is modeled. You don’t need to maintain things. Things can break and the failure model is very detailed and one of the best and deepest you find for GA planes. If not the best deepest. But there is no maintenance to it, like the oil getting too old and dirty. But they are very deeply modeled planes. I love the sticky needles in the cockpit in cold conditions.
The thing is, there is no right answers. Both planes are awesome addons and the differences in feel are very subjective. For me the Aerostar wins. But this is due to a very subjective thing. The BS planes feel very mathematical. They don’t hide that everything is part of an equation. This makes them feel very predictabel. You always know, that they are simulated. The A2A hides this better. You don’t feel like you are operating equations moving through a digital realm. But again, this is soo subjective that you shouldn’t base your decision on it.
7 Likes
After both of those excellent in depth reviews you will still have to have both 
.
7 Likes
I prefer the Baron just because of the looks and the fact that it’s a way more popular aircraft. I tend to gravitate to aircraft that are common in real life. I enjoy pretending that I’m doing real life flights in my own personal aircraft and it’s just much more likely (well) that I would own a Baron than an Aerostar. I also think the Aerostar is not a very pretty aircraft, not inside the cockpit nor on the outside. This is also why I don’t fly the Comanche anymore even though it’s a very detailed aircraft. I can’t stand that old instrument panel with those horrendous yokes 
I personally don’t care too much about failures. I want to do my flights on VATSIM without unpredictable problems and I find that the BS aircraft have a nicely balanced failure model.
At the end of the day it’s all personal taste though. You can’t go wrong with either.
3 Likes
Also in terms of money for the same price you have 2 planes and 3 variants each… the drawback of bs is that you cannot fill the cabin with passengers and there is no exterior tear and wear. This could be some nice improvement. For me the Aerostar looks like to not have the same level of quality as the Comanche (yet).
A2A pros:
- very own external flight model which is unbeaten in GA IMO, but a average simmer might even not notice the accuracy or even find the flight model wrong
- very own external engine simulation with very detaild simulation of everything going on in the cylinders and stuff, unbeaten
- you really have to care for your aircraft everytime
- more shaking and vibrations
BKSQ pros:
- visuall better than A2A in my opinion
- more systems and depth overall, since the real life models of the baron are just more complex than the aerostar (meaning pressurized cabin, turbocharger, more avionics)
- more pure “content” for the money
If you wanna practice flight handling → A2A
If you wanna practice procedures/navigation → BKSQ
If you wanna have the most versions for the hangar for your money → BKSQ
If you wanna have fun → either one.
if you love the real baron more → BKSQ
If you love the real aerostar more → A2A.
13 Likes
Does this mean that they don’t use native CFD? If they don’t, I have serious doubts that it is unbeaten. With a non-CFD model, you can definitely achieve accurate performance (speeds, climb rates), but a good CFD model is required to achieve accurate physics. All the best GA aircraft in MSFS in terms of the flight model, such as the DA40 or DA42 from COWS or the Sting S4 from FSReborn, all utilize CFD. I’m yet to see a good non-CFD aircraft that truly matches a good CFD-based one.
The Aerostar is not bad, but the trim controls do not respond to my mappings. I need to map buttons I can hold down to get them to work. The Black Square planes respond perfectly. You get a lot more for your money with the Black Square planes. 3 versions of each. I got the bundle, so that means I have 6 new planes that are IMHO the best on the market now.
Does it have to be one or the other?
1 Like
Two expensive addons and not all of us are rich. It makes sense to choose one of the awesome twins.
This is a really good point, and well said. With A2A, you have to be as on-edge as you do irl, because something might break because of the environmental conditions, or the way you handled it, or just because things break. BS again, yes things can (and do) fail, but it feels more mathematical and random.
(The Baron). Another good point - it feels like cheating flying the Duke (which I prefer over all three, haha) because real Dukes are very rare and expensive to maintain because they haven’t been produced for several decades. So irl, I’d be babying the heck out of it and probably have to have a lot more disposable money flying that or the Aerostar (similar situation) than if I owned a reasonably modern variant of the more ubiquitous Baron.
2 Likes
Normally external Flight Model means, they don´t use stuff from the insime Flight Model, but if made correctly that means it is even better than the rest, CFD or not. See Fenix for airliners, they also use their own flight model and have a very good reputation on their flight model, like a2a for their comanche and aerostar. For a2a it is their “accu-sim” technology, which might be more than just the flight model, it might include all systems even. But that is what makes a2a so special.
a lot of BKSQ wear and tear is not random. If you exceed limits of the engine, at some point you start loose power or the entire engine. and the random failues are indeed time and chance based, but that would be also true for random failures in a a2a addon. Still a2a is far more sensible regarding exceeding limits and simulate every single cylinder of the engine even, which BKSQ seems not to do yet.
1 Like
True, I should have stated that. The engine wear is indeed modeled separately.
If you can spare 50 bucks for an addon for a video game, you can spare 100. But if you only actually want one and also can’t stetch to the Baron and Bonanza package then, I’d probably get the Baron.
I’m happy for you that your current circumstances allow you to believe that.
However, for me, that just isn’t true,
1 Like
The Blacksquare bundle is the best option. Many variants of Bo and Baron, for a little more than the Aerostar. Blacksquare in my mind has surpassed A2A with these airplanes.
I have an unpopular opinion to share. Hope you don’t shred me to pieces.
Flying exclusively in VR with an OLED Headset, the Aeorostar and the Comanche are looking better in the cockpit than the Blacksquare aircraft. The materials they use are a lot more believable than in the BS aircraft. The analogue instruments have more depth to them, especially the flight director and the artificial horizon in the Aerostar. Also the BS textures are somehow a bit more grainy. I don’t know how to describe it differently. It just feels a bit dirty/grainy. But that’s me flying in VR with a headset that costs more than most PCs… I am blessed for having this opportunity. I can’t say how this looks and feels on a flatscreen or with an LCD Headset with a lower resolution.
2 Likes