PAD releases Beech 99

[virginblue]

PAD releases Beech 99:

http://www.premaircraft.com/

Only found one on the G- register (G-NUIT) - for less than a year in 83/84. The Beech 99 was quite popular in France with the likes of Air Paris, Air Alpes, Air Champagne, TAT, but apparently never in the UK.

[bobmay]

There is currently a Beech 99 Reg N899DZ operating in the UK with skydiving clubs. Painted all black. Presumably this replaces the DHC-2 Black Beaver skydiver that tragically crashed at Headcorn 2 years ago.

Bob.

[Garry Russell]

Intra Airways was very keen on the type in the early days. The demonsator N949K was evaluates by them but nothing came of it.

They were also interested in the YAK 40 about the same time ...looking into Dakota replacements

[cowpatz]

This one is a bit of a disappointment. I am not sure what it is with PAD models but the slow speed and takeoff/landing handling characteristics are poor. It is almost as if the CG is well forward of the main gear. It makes it very awkward to get a nice rotation/de-rotation on takeoff and landing. I find this to be a problem on many of the PAD models and really puts me off. I see there are numerous fixes to address some of these issues on some of their other models.....shame they couldn't have sorted this one out first.
I also found the exterior lines OK but the lack of detail makes it really only suitable for AI use.
The VC panel also suffers from chronic out of focus gauges. It is a real shame as they model some very interesting aircraft types.

[Chris Trott]

While I found a few minor things, I only needed 5 degrees of nose up trim to rotate properly with a fully loaded airplane and beyond that it handled as expected and stalled right on the numbers. I'm not sure what you're basing your extremely generic review on, but it's not the aircraft I downloaded from PAD. In addition, you say that you have this problem with "many of the PAD models". Which ones? I've never had a problem with any of their aircraft and have found their models to generally be quite well behaved and within reason for the level of quality they state they put out. These guys are not putting out payware that cost thousands and thousands to develop. They're putting out free aircraft that are a more than reasonable approximation of the real aircraft based on what data they can get via normally available channels and documents without spending a ton of money for documents that only add another 1% to the fidelity of the model.

As for the "detail", I'm sorry, but like most around here, the airplane doesn't have to look like a $10,000, 10 million polygon work of art to be good. PAD has always made their aircraft to be easy on the framerates while being accurate to the plans, which this aircraft is having been next to the real thing many times. I'm not sure what "details" you want, but as most of their details are in the textures, why don't you just make more detailed textures for the airplane?

Finally, with the gauges - sorry, but that's your system, not the plane. I just flew it in FSX and FS9 and all the gauges were crisp, clear, and actually ran at near realtime instead of the herky-jerky that a lot of VC's have.

[Plymouthair]

This one is a bit of a disappointment. I am not sure what it is with PAD models but the slow speed and takeoff/landing handling characteristics are poor. It is almost as if the CG is well forward of the main gear. It makes it very awkward to get a nice rotation/de-rotation on takeoff and landing. I find this to be a problem on many of the PAD models and really puts me off. I see there are numerous fixes to address some of these issues on some of their other models.....shame they couldn't have sorted this one out first.
I also found the exterior lines OK but the lack of detail makes it really only suitable for AI use.
The VC panel also suffers from chronic out of focus gauges. It is a real shame as they model some very interesting aircraft types.

Little harsh considering the work that goes in to them, I'm sure you'll like to present some work of yours thats better?

[cowpatz]

I'm not sure what you're basing your extremely generic review on, but it's not the aircraft I downloaded from PAD. In addition, you say that you have this problem with "many of the PAD models". Which ones? I've never had a problem with any of their aircraft and have found their models to generally be quite well behaved and within reason for the level of quality they state they put out.

Finally, with the gauges - sorry, but that's your system, not the plane. I just flew it in FSX and FS9 and all the gauges were crisp, clear, and actually ran at near realtime instead of the herky-jerky that a lot of VC's have.

I believe that this forum is for the more discerning flight simmer with a bent for accuracy where possible. Whilst I recognise that this model is freeware (and I applaud PAD for that generosity) the quality of freeware varies considerably. I am not sure what you mean by "generic review" as my comments were related to quite specific areas and they were not meant to be construed as being any form of review. If you are meaning was I using my 10 years plus years of flight simming or my 15,000 hrs of real world flying experience, covering many aircraft types, when assessing these characteristics then I guess it could be called generic.

Like the Dash 8, Dornier 228 and 328 I find the general handling to be all the same. The rotation and de-rotation forces are not correct in my view and this is compounded by the lack of inertia in the control forces. I might try and tweak the air file and see if I can refine it to something a little more realistic.
As to the lack of virtual cockpit detail....well that was my bad as I had lowered the quality via the settings option for another model and I had forgot to reset it..I don't use the VC that much so had not noticed it until then.

Hey Chris if you are happy with low polygon count models then by all means go for it.
I was just sharing my initial views with other members of the forum.....it's what forums are for.

As for the detail some can be applied via textures for sure...but that's a dark art and another learning curve altogether.

Noticed the Glideslope indicator is reversed.

Plymouthair - I fully appreciate the efforts that go into producing a model. It is an art form and like all art forms it varies in quality and the appreciation of it is very much in the eye of the beholder. However if every time we critique a new release of a freeware model we get the well worn and somewhat juvenile remark such as yours then will that not lead to a situation whereby no one can make any critical comments at all unless they have produced their own model?

Happy simming.

[Chris Trott]

Considering that freeware was (and is) a generally "take it or leave it" concept, then yes, there is a line you can and can't cross with critiquing of a freeware model. You can make constructive remarks about things you genuinely thing may be an issue and make sure to state why you think they are (i.e. what specifically constitutes "not correct" rotation forces). Is the trim setting wrong? Is the control deflection required wrong? Or is it something you can't quite put your finger on? If it's the last, which is what it seems to me to be more than anything, it's difficult for the critique to be "constructive" when you can't suggest why it's wrong. so, if the real plane (at full gross and proper CG) should be using 2* nose up trim and it's using 5* in FS, then that's a quantifiable issue that can be solved, but I'm not sure that's true.

Let me be clear, I understand your long history and experience and don't discount it. However, from my own limited (~200 hours) real world flying, extensive (4000+ hours) simulation experience (including 1000+ of that doing beta testing of models), and at least some experience with most levels of "professional" simulators from the procedural & FRASCA-type up to modern Level-D sims, I can tell you that what is "right" is different in each one. For example - what is "right" in the C172 NAVIII I've been flying most recently is not the same as what is "right" in the C172 NAVIII FRASCA sim that I use as well. In fact, as with all sims I've flown, the FRASCA sim much more challenging to fly right in all respects and it always seems like the inputs I'm making are either too much or too little. However, I find that I'm actually making the exact same inputs, but because the feedback is different, it feels "off". Likewise, when I'm flying the C172 NAVIII in FSX, I get the same issue - it "feels" wrong, but in fact, when I start comparing notes, again, it's almost exactly the same as what I do in the real plane, giving for the fact I'm using a Saitek X45 for a controller instead of a yoke, but the % of deflection required to get the desired result is the same. So, while theoretically, both the FRASCA and FSX Cessna 172 NAVIII's are within less than 1% of the real airplane, both "feel" different from the real thing even though I can quantifiably show otherwise.

This is my point. Just because it "feels" wrong, doesn't mean it is. You have to look at the quantifiable information (like deflection angles and percentage of control device movement) to see. It's an adjustment many pilots have to make because they're used to a different set of sensory inputs that augment your tactile responses both in the plane and in a full-cockpit simulator versus the even more limited inputs from FS. One of the things that I was told during the testing of the SGA DC-10 that I'll always remember (and this is from a guy with about the same experience as you) -

I can't fly the DC-10 by "feel" in FS. I have to block all that out and fly it by the numbers. When I do that, and ignore my normal habits, the plane flies exactly as it should. When I try to "feel" for where the plane wants to be, or "feel" for where the controls should be instead of using the instruments, it never does what I want.

[cowpatz]

I appreciate and understand what you are trying to say. However some models just seem to get it right despite the limitations of flight sim such as control feedback. The PMDG B1900, 747-400 and the wonderful Tinmouse 737-200 are such examples. It just seems to me that each PAD aircraft handles the same, momentum and inertia wise and the perception of weight remains the same. Sure the values might be spot on for stalling etc but the art is in getting it to feel like it is stalling and to handle as much like the real world aircraft as possible. Without this aspect there would be no difference in the handling of an Ultra light to a heavy airliner and therefore the immersion factor is somewhat diluted.
I am going to give this a fair go and tinker a bit with the configs and see what comes up.

[Plymouthair]

I'm not getting into an arugment here, though it is critism like yours that drives freeware developers away, a good example would be Mike Stone. Can I suggest that in future you either don't use PAD's models or you give us a helping hand as to where we can improve?