Things I wish I knew before buying

Discussion Hub Aircraft
1

I am quite OCD when it comes to planes so my aim is to collect high quality planes that can justify their presence in my hangar.

My planes need not be very complex but being payware, they must at least be equal or better than the default planes in respect of the following factors:

  1. system depth: must be equal or better than the default planes

  2. modelling and textures: must be equal or better than the default planes

  3. flight model: must fly ok but need not be the same as real world counterpart

  4. sound: this is a very important factor for me, the plane must sound great but need not be the same as real world counterpart

  5. collision detection: being able to walk past the airplane’s cockpit walls is such an immersion breaker

  6. default pilot models: must use default models and not the developer’s own models

So far I have purchased 5 planes all from the marketplace, and if I have known the things below I would not have purchased some of them.

Aerosoft CRJ

  1. system depth: pass
  2. modelling and textures: pass
  3. flight model: pass
  4. sound: pass
  5. collision detection: yes
  6. default pilot models: yes

Conclusion: this plane ticks all the boxes, no regrets whatsoever

Carenado C182T

  1. system depth: pass
  2. modelling and textures: pass
  3. flight model: pass
  4. sound: big fail, really annoying sound
  5. collision detection: no
  6. default pilot models: no

Conclusion: regret this purchase

Carenado Mooney

  1. system depth: pass
  2. modelling and textures: pass
  3. flight model: pass
  4. sound: pass
  5. collision detection: no
  6. default pilot models: no

Conclusion: regret this purchase

IndiaFoxtEcho Goshawk

  1. system depth: pass
  2. modelling and textures: fail
  3. flight model: pass
  4. sound: fail
  5. collision detection: no
  6. default pilot models: no (but ok for this plane)

Conclusion: regret this purchase

Asobo Top Rudder Solo

  1. system depth: pass
  2. modelling and textures: pass
  3. flight model: pass
  4. sound: pass
  5. collision detection: n/a (cannot walk around)
  6. default pilot models: yes

Conclusion: no regrets, this plane is the same quality as a default plane

2 Likes
2

I am considering whether to purchase the justflight arrows, spitfire and corsair.

Can any owners assist to answer how these planes score on each of the above factors?

3

So, the lesson here is, don’t buy it before you try it…

4

How many third party aircraft have a demo option?

5

Would have saved some money if I could try before buying or the marketplace has a refund policy!

1 Like
6

Hardly any would be my guess

7

There are plenty of reviews you can watch before purchasing an aircraft.

8

I’m picky about what I buy and do a lot of research before purchasing anything. The Corsair and JF Arrows are well worth it and would be good purchases based on the OPs criteria. Go for both.

9

There were plenty “reviews” of FS 2020. None mentioned the problems we’d have as we paid our $120 bucks to become newly vested beta testers for FS 2020. :wink:

Reviews can’t always be trusted.

5 Likes
10

The Spitfire is pretty good and they just updated it. Haven’t flown the update yet.

1 Like
11

Officially - none. Unofficially - well…

12

I just waiting to see who bought the A-4 on the marketplace …and <insert garbage/regret comment here>

1 Like
13

My suggestion is to go ahead and run head first into…errr… there is me being me. :slight_smile: Go look up some reviews before you buy! This is not a thread that… errr. Better stop it.

1 Like
14

In my opinion the modelling and textures of T-45 Goshawk is one of the best in msfs, how can this failed and the CRJ (which is inferior to Goshawk but still pretty good) passed?

2 Likes
15

that you say that the CRJ has the same or better model of textures than the base planes … says a lot about your criteria … have you ever zoomed in? LOL

16

I play on an LG CX 55 inch TV, at 4k resolution using RTX 3090.

Re the CRJ, the modelling and textures look great at 4K (both internal and external). No complaints at all.

Re the goshawk, at 4k, internally the modelling is ok but the textures are really weak and blurrish, especially the front square box with numbers and the glass display. Externally, the view from the back shows some empty space (could be a bug). And did you hear the sound? Ouch. And why no collision detection?

17

I’ve been simming for a very long time (FS98). I love simming because it’s a great way to enjoy aviation. My criteria are: looks fantastic inside and out, lots of gizmos to fiddle with in the cockpit, enjoyable to fly. For me, exploring system depth is reserved for the PMDG737 when it’s released, otherwise it’s ctrl-e all the way, baby.

In MSFS2020, my fail points are visible vertices, guages made by someone who watched a tutorial on youtube, and annoyingly twitchy flight characteristics. Frankly, most developers’ websites provide enough images to give away the first two fail points, while passionate discussions about tail draggers here and elsewhere provide sufficient warning of the last one. :smiley:

19

Textures CRJ

image
image750Ă—1000 45.6 KB

image
image750Ă—1000 32 KB

Textures a320neo

image
image750Ă—1000 30.2 KB

need glasses?

The CRJ bolts look like gum stuck to the chassis, and the engines look like tin, please don’t compare bad textures with next gen ones.

20

Many people don’t need glasses.
They just don’t need zooming.
The never ending texture zooming rivet mania.

5 Likes
22

It is not a mania, it is to require a minimum of standard quality

CRj is not a bad plane, but it does not meet requirements, deficiencies such as gelation effects? It does not reach studio level, it is well below the graphic level of asobo or fairing, it is an entertaining plane, very fun, but certainly not at 50 euros

the problem is that people do not require it, and then we have the junk marketplace that we have thanks to bad criteria…