Page 1 of 1

Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:59 pm
by U4EA
had to settle for the other.

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:55 am
by Fozzer
Wonderful shots!
Well done!

The 337 Panel certainly look "comprehensive"... ;)...!

As a keen "shadow" enthusiast, Pic #3 looks perfect in its "shadowy" glory!
What a different it makes when; "objects cast shadows" is selected!... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

I rather like the 337. An unusual, fast, expensive aircraft, now unfortunately now out of production!

Paul.... :)...!

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:44 am
by U4EA
My fondness of the O-2 variant stems from getting opps for quite a few ride-alongs while in the USAF.  Was instantly impressed with its capability and overall performance each and every ride!

I concur about the shadowig feature/effect.  Adds quite a bit to the realism of any sim.  Took me a while to tweek things so as to not be such a hiderance to framerates, but finally got it figured out.

FSD did quite an admirable job on the panels, both with the O-2 and 337 models.  Quite a nice unit all around.  Although Carenado's detailing is a bit more impressive, this one wasn't bad for $16.00 USD.

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:20 am
by Fozzer
We FS 2004 enthusiasts don't normally have any problems with Frame Rates with; "Shadows cast" selected... :P....

...but I reckon FSX "sufferers"... ;)...could select "Shadows On" just prior to taking a screen shot!
...it makes all the difference to the "reality" of the scene...trust me!

Paul... 8-)...!

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:37 am
by jetprop
We FS 2004 enthusiasts don't normally have any problems with Frame Rates with; "Shadows cast" selected... :P....

...but I reckon FSX "sufferers"... ;)...could select "Shadows On" just prior to taking a screen shot!
...it makes all the difference to the "reality" of the scene...trust me!

Paul... 8-)...!

In my sim shadows don't make much of an FPS difference. ;)

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:05 am
by Flying Trucker
Nice set U4EA... ;)

The O2 had a better range and more powerful powerplants than the C337.

Better visibility all around also.

One of Cessna's best as far as real aircraft go... ;)

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:42 am
by U4EA
The first ride I ever went along on sorta took me aback when I was asked to do a visual on the gear to make sure that it was retracted after take-off, and extended prior to landing. :o

Actually an O-2 provided me with what was possibly my first OMG-we-gonna-die moments....while over the range the front magneto failed, and a moment after that the rear mag followed suit.

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:17 am
by Fozzer
The old rear engine used to suffer badly from overheating (poor air-flow), but the advantage of the "in-line" engine arrangement meant that a failure of one engine didn't result in a slew to one side, and increased drag, as happens with conventional Twins!

...but Boy...do they sound nice with both engines on song!... :D...!

(Very popular in our local Air Races, in competition with Beech Baron Twins!)... ;D...!

...U4...was that a Mag failure (sparks), or an Alternator failure (battery charge)?

Paul... :)...!

P.S....Interesting, that the O2 is a more powerful upgrade to the 337!

Re: Wanted one, but,

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:32 am
by U4EA

...but Boy...do they sound nice with both engines on song!... :D...!

...U4...was that a Mag failure (sparks), or an Alternator failure (battery charge)?




Yes Paul, at full-song they were quite symphonic.