Yes! The tail numbers update dynamically if you choose that option within MSFS itself.
1 Like
Yeah. JF gets major brownie points for being so early out of the gate with their Piper family. Definitely needed at a time when the GA fleet was a sea of gramin screens. And they brought advanced features like state saving and engine wear. Almost like an “accusim light” product. I don’t regret my purchase of them at all, as they would consistently come up in the rotation, especially the potent Turbo arrow.
Now though, it’s tough to justify them to newcomers, as yes, the A2A offering is in an entirely different league. And frankly JF might have missed the boat on getting their Tomahawk to market in time, unless they can up the anty considerably. It will at least need an EFM or a VERY well sorted internal model, in order to really get to the core of it’s mission as a spin trainer.
3 Likes
Well… I beg to differ in opinion here. Because:
I believe many people tend to buy aircraft which the have some link to. I am one of them. For this reason I will not buy the A2A Comanche even though I have no doubts it is superior in many aspects to the JF Arrow.
I flew Pipers Warriors and Cadets IRL and so the JF Piper Arrow makes me feel right at home. The Comanche is just another (excellent) GA on the market towards which I feel no emotion.
2 Likes
I’d happily take the 377 or the Connie as well, but next up, as I understand it, is the Aerostar 600. Excited for that one as well; it’s not really a subject aircraft that has a lot of attention, yet seems like a fantastic (and FAST) way to take in the scenery of MSFS.
In fact, said fast moving Twin was due to be the debut MSFS product for A2A, but sadly the in-house example used for research was written off in a gear up landing incident. Thankfully, no major injuries for anyone onboard (she was crewed by A2As owner and his son!), and my understanding is that most of the principal research and sound recording needed was done before that happened. More on that sad saga here:
https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=71896
Either way, my hope is the Comanche opens the flood gates to get the ‘600 cranked out, and/or move over more of the previous FSK catalog to MSFS and the looming MSFS ‘24.
1 Like
Fair enough, I can see and respect that world view. Though I’d counter that an expertly done module like the Comanche is yet another way to establish that emotional connection to the subject aircraft.
Also, if you flew Warriors and Cadets, IMO don’t sleep on the Comanche; you most certainly feel the Piper DNA running through it. I suspect you’ll feel like you’re seeing an old friend again, just like I did 
1 Like
Well I can’t argue with that 
1 Like
About A2A B377 is one of the few reasons i still have the fsx installed…
2 Likes
See this?
1 Like
Thanks, yes, i was already know them, sadly they not worked well on P3D even saying thats compatible.
1 Like
sure
After their claim of an actual F-16 pilot confirming their FM is spot on, I’ll pass on any of their products.
It’s far from anything close to correct. At least from the RW F-16 simulator I’ve flown.
Looking over the screenshots, that F-4E nose looks too thin and pointy and the burner cans too long. Some other errors with the Navy variants as well.
3 Likes
I wasn’t that impressed with their Harrier. It was okay for the price (pretty sure I got it during a sale) but they applied a lot of “artistic licence” to the cockpit.
It also had some very strange FM behaviour. I knew it wouldn’t be that great, though - they make far too many military models for them all to be proper, accurate simulations. I just wanted it to be good enough for some fun in the likes of Neofly (military jets usually have an outstanding payload weight and get there pretty quickly) , and I suppose it’s okay for that.
1 Like
Next World Update is going to be Central Eastern Europe: Czech Republic 
, Slovakia, Hungary, Bosna and Hercegovina, Slovenia and Croatia.
Local Legend will be Aero Vodochody AE-45 / AE-145. A bit unusual for this region as there are other better choices in my view (a plethora of Zlins, Let L-410 or L-13 Blanik) but OK. It is made by Aeroplane Heaven so after some previous experiences I will stay clear of that one anyway 
3 Likes
When the shape of the nose of the DC Design’s Phantom was discussed over at Sim-Outhouse, the dev made a statement that their models sold like hot cakes so it is quite likely their business model is going to be changed.
1 Like
Beat me to it!
1 Like
So, regarding the flight model of the DC Designs stable, I’m going play Devil’s Advocate by pointing out that no flight sim (IMHO) is 100% accurate. I know of only one member of our group that can, with any authority say what a Harrier feels like to fly, or how it behaves in various scenarios. Comparing the F16 flight model to that of the RW simulator is also problematic because, even that simulator won’t feel or behave exactly like the real thing, and then we can mention that no two airframes perform identically.
I don’t see a problem with the DC/SC/CS Designs airplanes because the devs make it very clear that they are not shooting for anything resembling study level. What you get for your money is usually several different models (which might all fly identically but generally look the part). It seems that they have found a formula that works well for them. I can’t blame them for sticking with it.
2 Likes
On a related note: Good grief the Accu-Sim Comanche’s flight model feels really nice. MSFS has some pretty hokey ones for sure, but this feels like a good one, ground handling, trimming, stalls. Recommended to try.
2 Likes
It does feel ‘alive’.
to me they look like low hanging fruit.
their modeling and texturing looks cheap. thats my main gripe.
talking not study level but good aesthetics level, I think there are far better choices out there eg IndiaFoxtEcho, IRIS Sims, AERIAL Sims.
but the milions of customers needs to be fed and DC Designs seems to found formula (cut the dev times by not remodeling and retexturing the things at least three times or something) how to produce light sim food in sufficient tempo.