Labels on the EIS strip and omission of correct trim and flaps indications I think is what he means.
1 Like
They are different machines and so tough to compare but If it is only one then it has to be the Kodiak. I always have so much fun in the Kodiak. Still the number one GA in the sim for me.
1 Like
No idea why the 414 keeps popping up in relation to the 310. The 310 is a significantly more complex product with dynamic failures and wear and tear modelling.
The 414 is pretty and sounds great but quite basic in comparison. There are no consequences for abusing your engines, no dynamic failures, and no real need to follow checklists or know your emergency procedures etc. Before the 310 released it was a high end addon but the 310 has just set the bar so much higher for complex GA aircraft.
I spent a while learning how to deal with engine failures and flying around and landing with an engine out just to get across the procedures just in case it happens. I’ve never bothered with any other addon.
There is of course the difference in engine types and sounds as well. Do you like the throaty growl of two io-520’s or do you like the steady reliable whine of the PT-6?
Anyway, I don’t think you can go wrong with either but as has been pointed out already, the 310 sets the new bar for systems and failure simulation. That alone is worth the purchase. I love the Kodiak and it is a very solid choice but if I have one thing to say on it is that I personally don’t love the all-glass panel. The engine gauges are small in comparison to steam gauges and it seems to take away some of the immersion with engine management. But the flight model feels excellent and the aircraft itself is a very high performance bush plane that offers a world of possibilities across the globe.
I have both the 310 and Kodiak…depending on what type…ie"bush style" or cruising…depends on which one I load up.
If you are in a position of only being able to get one…decide which type of flying you prefer…
Bush Style=Kodiak…Cruising=310
Both are fantastic in their own rights.
Same for me just got the TDS GTNXi working today.
I have both and like both, probably leaning slightly towards the kodiak
But I am puzzled with all this talk on 310’s complexity. It is to me a simple twin, turn on engine, turn on avionics, fly. How complex can that be?
After 1000 hours in MSFS and 2000 hours in DCS, the 310 seems really simple to me. There are tons of planes out there that are much more complex
The 310 is extremely easy to take off and land. I did a perfect landing on first try. You want to know what is a hard to land plane? Try the MiG21bis in DCS, it took me many hours and more than 7 days of practice to finally be able to land safely without overturning or exploding.
3 Likes
It is an odd question, a bit like saying which do you prefer roast chicken or beer. One is a Glass Cockpit 750 HP PT6A turbo prop (very well modelled - though it does let you do really bad stuff like put the condition lever in low or high idle before ng reaches 14% and yet not damage the turbine with a hot start) and the other is a Piston light twin with steam gauges.
I have the Kodiak and am very happy with it. One of my go-to aircraft. It can be twitchy but that is to be expected with an aircraft with a similar weight and only slightly less horsepower compared to a Battle of Britain Mk1 Spitfire. Trim for nose-down on take-off and be very gentle when rotating and all will be fine. The glass is basically the Asobo Nxi - no more no less.
Some people report issues with autopilot approaches with VNAV and ILS but that may be more to do with the game then the aircraft itself. To be brutally honest the sort of bush strips you will use this on are unlikely to have VNAV anyway. A typical flight might be Goroka in PNG to a remote mountainside bush strip and back.
I do not own the 310R so cannot comment on the quality - but aircraft of this type are generally used as fast tourers and commuter operations between small regional airports. They are not optimal for rough strip operations and landing fees are too high at major hubs. A typical flight might be something like Queenstown in NZ to Christchurch.
Basically are you more inclined to fly between regional airports with ATC and tarmac runways enjoying the scenery or spend a lot of time in among the mountains dropping into bush strips with a full load of cargo ? let that guide your decision
If you want a MSFS equivalent buy the Cold War Fiat G91. It has all the house brick like landing characteristics and need for immaculate energy control on approach of the other Cold War death traps like the Migs and the F104. Short stubby swept back wings strapped to basically a rocket will do that for you. 
4 Likes
Which child is my favorite?
The Kodiak and the 310 are in my top three planes. Wouldn’t be happy without either one.
Simworks Studios is currently working on modeling hot starts. Maybe in time for the next update? Not sure.
1 Like
Both.
(10 chars)
Dynamic failures and wear and tear modelling mainly. Also the robust state saving and ‘ownership’ / maintenance experience.
You’re right that the plane itself is pretty simple to turn on and fly, but everything in it is modelled down the circuit breakers. Failures run the gamut from burnt indicator lamps to full on engine failure and it’s all based on a measure of dynamic wear and tear. Treat your engines badly and the chance to fail goes up.
just a suggestion –
5 Likes
The only correct answer is Both. If you have to choose only one, I’d recommend the Milviz C310R, only because the ownership persistence features just have to be experienced. It has changed how I fly, even when using different planes.
I’ll fly the Kodiak out in the mountains of PNG, and sometimes Alaska. You can take it pretty much anywhere. My understanding on the above mentioned G1000NXi issue is that it was patched very shortly after release. It was a Working Title issue and was quickly resolved.
Either of these planes will give you the realism you’re looking for, but having both will give you the flexibility to fly anywhere.
2 Likes
And that´s the best answer!
The Cessna 310 will be a dream of a bird if Milviz overhauls the 3D model of the seats and bring in some new seats with headrests 
(and maybe a modder will come up with a C310 black leather interior some day also on the sidepanels, I guess I will be that modder because I hate this potato sack material used to cover the interior *ggg).
The Kodiak also comes with a wonderful controllable air conditioning panel and lot´s of eyecandy. This greatly enhances the immersion.
Still going on about the seats? Their just seats. Enough already. The C310 IS a dream of a bird. Headrests or not? Really don’t think it matters to most.
3 Likes
The question back to you then could be What do you enjoy much in MFS?
Bush flying, low altitude, VFR, landing on short lost airfield ? > Kodiac without hesitation.
IFR, fast, cosy, twin engines, go for the Cessna.
You can afford both? Do it.
1 Like
I don’t own the 310R but I own the Kodiak.
After flying the Kodiak from Ushaia to New York I have to say I am done with it. It’s great and all but I just enjoy the Twin Otter more for that rustic STOL experience. It’s also way too twitchy for my taste and I don’t like hand flying it.
2 Likes
Decision taken !! (case closed)
I finally got the 310R. Im quite sure I’ll have some good fun with it!
Thank you all for trying to help me out in my decisionmaking. =D
Btw, are there any loading (as well as gaming) advantages uninstalling 3rd party aircraft from FS2020 Im not using?
4 Likes
You will bust the engine on the Milviz Porter if you just jam the engine right away to low or high idle, so simply on basis of that it seems the Porter is actually higher fidelity model than the Kodiak (and also more unique since Porter is super rare or downright unique even in real life in being approved to use limited amount of beta in flight).
The OP had a sub question of whether these planes are really significantly better (with implication of higher fidelity) than some of the other similar planes out there. The answer to that seems to be no (at least on part of the Kodiak, 310 is the only plane with wear and tear currently, though another one has already been submitted to the Marketplace). And they don’t necessarily have more character either. Ultimately, lot of personal preference will be seen in stuff like this.