Dash-8 Q400 Review

[Simmo W]

Thanks to Jack and Joe for providing us with a gratis copy of their first plane, see our preliminary review here

We stand firm by our belief that the price of $40 is still too high, but we won't let that stop you getting it if you are a fan of this very nice looking plane!

The aircraft is a great first effort, I'm sure you guys learnt a lot from it. I for one could never attempt such a large and complex project.

Great to see Ben's Gizmo being used for the first time in a payware project, so congrats to Ben too!

[karingka]

Good review, well written, as usual!  

[Kesomir]

I enjoyed the review and I agree that the price is still a little high.

I do disagree with the comparison with the ERJ (which I also like). I find that the 3d work is considerably better in the Q400 than the ERJ - no marching ants etc, displays much clearer, beautiful reflections.

In addition, while the flight model may or may not be spot on (like you I cannot make a call), handling is much better than the v2 ERJ which has the tail upside down until you modify the file.

I also think that the enormous Gizmo splash screen is more than enough homage to Ben. In fact I think that for the price, a deal should have been worked out to get this payware aircraft to not require a code. Freeware, yes, but payware? (Note: I already have my own code). Like FSUIPC payware paying and being exempt from a 'full' user license to work. In that case, then a nod in the manual would be more appropriate.

Where I do think there needs to be an improvement is the 'ghetto' FMS. Hopefully vasFMC embedded will be swapped in to replace the default in an update as well as further developing systems.

It's a 'lite' plane and as such I do think it should be in the $30-$35 range rather than where it is, where a proper FMC would equate it better with MSFS aircraft in that price range.

It's still one of the best looking aircraft in x-plane though, so here's hoping that if they don't drop the price a bit more, that they develop it further to be worthy of the price tag.

I really bought this to repaint it, but think that another price drop would be overall a better move to pull in more customers/revenue overall.

A pilot at my VA who I think would enjoy the plane stated "He is asking way too much for that aircraft in my opinion. It may look and fly lovely but that is approaching PMDG money with full blown FMS etc-and that's just being greedy."

Their call.

[woweezowee]

I agree with most points, kesomir. But one thing, the price: PMDG is no comparison. They have a much larger user base. If we xplaners want great acf and scenery, we have to be willing to pay a higher price until there is a much more developed market out there. Otherwise no one will make a living with add-on development. Compare to Carenado: From the little C-152 to 40$ for the Dash8, I think that Armchair Aviation give the users a fair deal.

If the xplane10 bloggers really want the Xplane market to florish in the future, they and everybody else has to be willing to "play" early adopter and support the evolving market by putting ones money in it. Then, maybe in 1 or 2 years from now, if xplane version 10 is a success, we can talk again about price policies.

What else would be the lessons for all those developers that everybodys wants "to come over". The message clearly would be: Well, not much users, and none of them willing to pay a price. What the heck, stick with MSFS. Why take that risk?

[Kesomir]

The quote I added is neither mine nor my opinion. I am more than prepared to support payware producers in x-plane, the quote was to illustrate what others were thinking, and therefore what would prevent them from buying. That chap bought the STMA PC-12, which for me doesn't have enough eye candy to lure me in. For him, he absolutely loves it (while being aware of the candy deficiency).

I like the Q400, like most x-plane offerings, it's not quite finished and I hope will evolve over time, but for me, is a very good aircraft; because I put quite a lot of value on eye candy, and the flight model is nice (I like the feel of the Dash). As an aside, I own Aerosoft's A320 for FSX which has excellent eye candy and enough systems to keep me happy, but the flight model is garbage to the point you can't hand fly the plane.

The choice of aircraft plays a large role too - if the Dash 8 wasn't in my VA's fleet, I probably wouldn't have bought it (at the price - the ERJ isn't in our fleet, but I bought that).

The issue isn't price per se, it's perceived value. If the Dash had a non default FMC and perhaps a little more systems simulated, then there wouldn't be as much debate like there was with the A380.

Armchair aviation should set a price that they are happy with, and maybe down the line have a price drop to regenerate sales. I think they've done a great job on the plane and will enjoy it for some time no doubt.

It's a shame because I think at a slightly lower price point, they would have had a better reception, but I do want them to earn enough off the aircraft to keep developing it and make more of them.

[woweezowee]

yes, as for your VA, for me the planes I purchase also have to be usasable in FSEconomy. The Dash is the third largest plane there

[cw7]

@woweezowee: We are quite possibly the earliest of the early adapters, and consistently try get first looks out on almost all of the major payware ACF within hours of release, and we typically pay for the products we review. Our only caveat: we aren't millionaires and are sometimes limited by what we can afford, so there are necessarily a few ACF we'll take a pass on. We took a stand on this ACF as the 50 dollar price was, in our opinion, out of line. We didn't do this out of malice or a lack of respect for these or any other developers, we did so out of concern for our readers. Beyond this issue, our first look was simply that, and this was made possible by Jack and Joe's generous gratis copy. But a freebie does not mean we're not going to talk about our concerns. If anyone expects that kind of response from us they're seriously mistaken.

This post was not a fully realized review of the ACF, but rather, as the title clearly states, a quick look around the file. This post in no way represents the final word on the Q and was a means to get real, in-SIM imagery out to our readers with as little editorializing as possible attached. We included our first impressions as a means to convey what impressed us, and those items that concerned us.

We are utilizing the talents of several new people to write reviews, and it's quite possible one of our new reporters will write the final review of the Q at some point

@kesomir: I understand your concerns about comparing the Q and the ERJ, but it is one of only a handful of ACF that you can validly draw comparisons to - currently - but our intent was not to strictly compare, but to provide a frame of reference. Sorry for the confusion.

C

[woweezowee]

@woweezowee: ...We didn't do this out of malice or a lack of respect for these or any other developers, we did so out of concern for our readers.

I'm your reader, too. But anyways my remark was not aimed at you specifically, but more generally speaking.

@kesomir: I understand your concerns about comparing the Q and the ERJ, but it is one of only a handful of ACF that you can validly draw comparisons to...

well, there you have it. that's the market as it is now: a handful of good payware planes for a rather thin user base. we all want both to change, right? So call out what's crap, that's fine and more than necessary, but for the good ones there needs to be money and positive feedback in it - or they won't stay. at least that's what I fear.

[YYZatcboy]

For one I appreciate the Honest feedback from Simon and Chip. I'd like to thank them for taking their time to look her over and give us their opinions.

As to continuing development, Jack and I have lots of plans on what to keep on building. We have additional EFIS Screens almost ready to go, we left them out because of frame rate issues that I was having, but now we seem to have them pretty well fixed. We are also discussing weather to adapt the vasFMC imbedded like the CRJ or write our own using Gizmo. Either option would be a very big and interesting challenge. We are waiting for the CRJ to come out before making a decision so we can fully evaluate it.

Needless to say all future upgrades will be free for existing users.

[hobofat]

Needless to say all future upgrades will be free for existing users.

I can definitely appreciate that kind of attitude!

Regarding the review itself, my overall impression as a regular reader of XPlane10's Blog reviews is that it was decidedly negative compared to past reviews.  Sure there are platitudes, but they are by and large framed on all sides by negatives.  Almost like an aside.  I'm just wondering if maybe an "non-editorialized" first impression might better be made during waking hours and not on the heels of the issue regarding whether or not a review would even be made.

Just my two yen opinion, that is all.  I personally would expect more regarding an FMS based on the price point, but it sure is some nice eye candy!

[Cameron]

Where I do think there needs to be an improvement is the 'ghetto' FMS. Hopefully vasFMC embedded will be swapped in to replace the default in an update as well as further developing systems.

I've been reading in a few places about this, and have noticed there are a few misinterpreted items from the implementation of the new embedded FMC.

The vasFMC embedding was done for the CRJ. While the core of vasFMC and this small tidbit of code is/will be public domain, the CRJ is still unique in it's FMC functionality to the true aircraft. I have read in various places that some assume the FMC provided with the CRJ will simply be a straight shoot of the vasFMC as it stands (which is based on the Airbus FMC). Such is not truly the case, and, of course, such code and other information used to make the FMC unique will not be shared with the public.

So, while vasFMC certainly will become an option to many developers, it's not going to be a simple swap process, and aside from that fact, if left at default functionality it will not be true to the aircraft without the developers' hard work to alter the information and how it's passed around into the FMC itself. You'll need to get comfy with C.

[YYZatcboy]

Thanks for the clarification Cameron. Much appreciated.

[Kesomir]

Even a vanilla (not aircraft specific) vasFMC embedded would be a leap forward over the default FMC.

Although of course, an aircraft specific solution would be even better.