Honestly I agree as well, I’ve got buyers remorse with this one ever since the 310 came out. The 310 with it’s dynamic failure model, complete systems and (apparently very realistic, but quite stressful) flight modelling are just on another level for the same amount of money. I’m not sure how future buyers will reconcile the 414 being sold for a higher price once we’re out of beta while offering significantly less fidelity.
I’ll keep monitoring the beta as it progresses to see how this one develops but there is a lot to do to outside of visual improvements and new sounds (which are greatly appreciated, don’t get me wrong). In my mind, what would elevate this would be a functional dynamic failure systems with wear and tear like the 310. Actually having to follow proper checklists and know your emergency procedures really brings things to a new level of immersion.
I have to admit I have not tested all the systems on all variants. For private use I fly only the version with the two Garmin 750 screens that´s why I cannot tell if the GNS530 or 750NXI versions are fully functional
I have noticed that the cockpit looks way better and more interesting and “retro” when using the GNS530, but this cockpit version is not finished yet and some of the gauges are not clickable…
In defense of the developers (who have been extremely interactive and responsive to the customer base), this is not yet a finished product. The developers have repeatedly expressed that they are not finished with the flight model and are working closely with real 414 pilots to get it right. The flight model changes have been waiting on a number of things but they are certainly not done yet. We, as consumers, have no idea of the future plans for fidelity increases on this one. We all voluntarily bought in to a project that was under development. To even compare it to the 310 in terms of what we get for the money is not at all fair to the process that we agreed to. If, when the project is marketed and sold as complete, it still has issues, then we are free to criticize as we individually see fit (in my opinion). Until then, I honestly feel it is a better use of energy to provide constructive feedback to the developers in hopes of furthering the effort to make this aircraft even better than it is today.
I also mainly fly the same variant as you and the systems are not fully functional. Volts/amps readings, oil temp gauge, EGT peak needles, transponder on/off to name a few.
Very well said. In fact, part of the fun I’ve had so far with this model is to interact with Mark (aka Momo on Discord) and the dev team. I think they are doing Yeoman’s work, and have made steady progress; the improved sounds are the most obvious example.
With regard to the flight model: to be honest it has been all over the map. It has gone from acceptable to bad to worse to better again. Clearly this is a work in process, and all changes all done with the intent of “getting it right.”
Kudos to the dev team, and a big “thanks!” for letting us help you create a truly nice model.
I also have/had a lot of fun with the aircraft, but the claims that it is the best GA aircraft with so much system depth are just not true and they do not come from the developers, who always played with open cards. We will see what the future brings, but at the discord the developers already said, that they do not plan to integrate a failure system for example - which is very sad, because that is the main reason why I shifted my time more to the 310. It is just more interesting and thrilling than knowing that it will be an uneventful flight. (Hate the landings on the 310 though)
I agree that the landings are not satisfying and even though I manage to float and land with power-on setup , it still feels a bit off. I know they said they worked closely with real life pilots but I’m still sceptic about how dramatic the aircraft drops on the runway when you cut down the power. Worst part is it drops like a rock but you don’t feel like you’ve hit the tarmac that hard , it’s like it connects to the surface gently but in an instant ! The landing gear and the runway are like two magnets …
I’ve stopped flying it for a while hoping they will tone it down a bit but I doubt it, they seem really stiff about it being perfect so I keep my expectations low.
I share your interest in failures as well. I have been messing around a bit with this mod recently and it has been very interesting so far. I am cautiously optimistic that it works pretty good with the 414 so far. Granted, the failures will not come from abusive flight parameters but it does introduce the realm of the unknown to each flight. RandFailuresFS2020 » Microsoft Flight Simulator
I have expressed my concerns about the landing in the corresponding thread in this forum, but I was shut down with exactly the same answers. I am way in the 5 digits of real life flight time hours and no aircraft I have ever flown gave me that feedback. It feels like being sucked down by a magnet and held on the runway. The landings in the 414 feel way better and that’s why I keep coming back to it.
Played around a little bit in the virtual cockpit textures… the luxury edition of the Chancellor already looks superb - but there is still room for enhancement
I know it’s supposed to be there. But it looks out of place because the resolution of the “reflection” is far lower than the resolution of the plane interior. And I think that’s what makes it look so bad.
Same effect as the passenger models in the Kodiak or C310R. Cool that this was added, but the texture resolution is so much lower than anything else in the cabin that it makes them look just badly out of place.
Nah … that “mirror” looks terrible, even from the front seat. It stops me from looking into the otherwise nicely modelled and textured cabin. It gotta go, to be honest.
Well, before you skip the plane, increasing the ground effect parameter in the config +0,5 made it for me, flare enabled.
At your own risk: flight_model.cfg, lift_coef_ground_effect_mach_table =0.534000:1.550000
Regards,
Herbert
…
