I only want to buy one but can’t decide on which one.
Any suggestions would be very helpful, which one shall I buy?
You can’t really go wrong and it depends what kind of flying you like. The Kodiak is slower and takes off from shorter bush strips. The King Air is much faster and has much greater system depth, but you won’t get it out of a 1700 ft strip on the side of a mountain like the Kodiak will.
If I could only have one I guess it would be the King Air though.
They really are two different types of planes, with different use cases.
Kodiak is mostly a bush plane for mountains and valleys. With a glass cockpit.
King Air is a touring plane, for distance and speed. With a steam cockpit.
They are both awesome planes, I have both and wouldn’t want to have to choose. But really, for you, it’s a judgement call. What type of plane do you want? Bush or touring.
I have both and much prefer the Kodiak. For some reason the mouse positioning in the BSKA is wonky in VR. For some positions the pointer hovers way above the panel, and when you get it over a controllable button/knob, it pops down. It was difficult to control, so I moved on. The Kodiak is the best aircraft in MSFS IMO.
1 Like
The Kodiak wins for several reasons. Mainly, it has its own model and flight model, so it feels like more than a dashboard. Also, on slower systems it gets better performance.
It’s just excellent.
The King Air is impressive for what it is, but it doesn’t feel as complete as the Kodiak.
You could compare the Kodiak more with the Grand Caravan C208B, but not with the King Air.
7 Likes
I have both and they’re both excellent. I don’t think it’s really fair to compare them to each other, like @Mosquito616801 mentions. Very different airplanes. Having said that, in my mind systems depth is far greater in the KA, but that’s not a knock on the Kodi by any means. The KA flight model has been tweaked and is a large improvement on the default (and being improved more), so it’s more than just a new instrument system.
The flight model in the King Air has been redone and feels a lot different from stock imo. It’s really good right now from my point of view, though I’ve never flown a king air or kodiak in real life.
Minimal changes have been made to the flight model as per the developer. How you fly determines how a plane reacts, so it does fly a bit differently with a steam setup, and there have been some slight changes made. But this is by no means a bespoke flight model and aircraft. It is mostly a new cockpit.
The King Air is way sexier. As good as the Kodiak is, I find it a bit of a boring plane.
If you follow the main thread the developers are in there and have adjusted many things about the flight model and engine model in each patch coming out so far. It’s plenty of difference.
Sigh…
I am just making a POINT to specify a key fact: They did NOT make a new, bespoke flight model for this plane, and the plane’s graphics model is also, completely stock.
The only fully bespoke thing you get with your purchase is a new cockpit.
This is vastly different from say, what Milviz did with their analog Porter, in spite of the Asobo Porter already being in sim. THEY made a whole new, bespoke plane and flight model to go with their entirely new and bespoke systems and analog cockpit.
Grok?
No amount of spin makes this King Air an entirely new King Air. It is for all intents and purposes, a new dashboard. Still a good add on, but not a whole new plane. And for the price, that is worth considering.
What about the real world King Air pilots who have tested this out and say it flys differently to the stock model. The flight dynamics have been changed so you are wrong.
It most certainly isn’t just a “new cockpit”. Have you seen the many You Tube reviews confirming? Also I doubt it would have got the praise it’s just a new cockpit.
It can be hard to speak facts to folks who like something. I think the scientific term for this phenomenon is, “Fanboy-itis.”
This isn’t a forum made for arguments, so I will just leave my points for folks to see and consider.
I know folks like this version. I do too.
But I am not going to pretend it is the same as an entirely bespoke airplane addon. That is simply not the case.
Anything will fly differently if YOU fly it differently, and the analog cockpit changes how YOU fly the plane, which does make for a different experience. And while minimal, the devs have made some tweaks to the flight model. But that is like what an editor does to a book compared to an author who writes the whole thing.
1 Like
Your really not making any sense. And by the way I’m not a fanboy as I haven’t even purchased this aircraft yet.
In the developers own manual it states this:
“Included, you will find a complete redesign of all aircraft systems to more closely match the real aircraft, with a focus on electrical systems. Also included are more accurate weight and balance, lighting systems, flight dynamics, and ground handling.”
This doesn’t sound like “minimal” changes to me. They say “complete redesign” of aircraft systems. That to me doesn’t mean minimal.
But you are implying that it’s only different because of the way you fly it !
As per my prior post, I am not here to argue.
I will just let the developers speak for themselves about their steam gauge OVERHAULS.
You can’t compare for all the reasons already given. I am interested though in those that claim the KA has greater system depth. I consider system depth to be how well it replicates the real one, but not how complex the systems are. Granted some aircraft are more complex than others and I think we can all agree the KA is more complex than the Kodiak. I’m curious however as to what specifically makes the implementation of its systems better than what the Kodiak does. Please don’t cite failures 
.