• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

PMDG DC-6 and A2A Constellation

V

vortex

Members +
Now that the dust has settled on the release of the PMDG DC-6 and people have had an opportunity to give it some hours, I wondered how it compares to the A2A Connie. If you have both (and so can give a genuine, first-hand assessment), what do you think about the following areas for each of them:

1. Systems modelling (fuel, hydraulics, electrics etc.)

2. Flight model - does the performance seem accurate? Does it fly like you'd imagine it should (highly subjective, I know)?

3. External model.

4. Virtual cockpit.

5. Sounds.

6. Documentation

7. Additional features.

Do you think they both justify their price? Which do you prefer?
 
They are both excellent! Visually I think there is not much difference. Both models are superb representations of their real world counterpart. Maybe the VC of the PMDG DC-6 looks a little bit better due to its photo-realistic textures. That adds a lot to the immersion of sitting in a real DC-6 cockpit. But the VC of the A2A Connie is on a very high level as well.

When it comes to the systems the A2A Connie is a little bit ahead of the PMDG DC-6. Especially when it comes to starting the engines. With the Connie you really have the feeling of starting a real radial engine. The whole process is fully dynamic and many variables (like outside temperature, health of the engine, etc.) are taken into consideration. Starting the engines of the Connie is an experience in itself (like with any A2A aircraft). You can start the engines of the PMDG DC-6 by the book as well and everything is fully simulated. But it feels a bit scripted...like pressing this button and that button in a given time frame and you get a certain outcome. The strength of the DC-6 is that every lever and button is simulated (including all circuit breakers!) and works as it should. This is not fully the case with the Connie as some stuff like e.g. the hydraulic hand pump is missing and the circuit breakers are also not simulated. Both have a virtual flight engineer and failures if you maltreat them.

Flight dynamics are both top notch. A2A always creates very good flight dynamics and Alexander Metzger, who did the flight dynamics for the DC-6, has an excellent reputation as well.

I like the sound on both aircraft. But the A2A Connie wins this category nonetheless. You truly hear that Scott is a sound engineer and knows exactly what to do to create an excellent sound set.

Regarding the additional features I think the biggest point is that the A2A Connie offers the simulation of a crew and the cabin as well as a career system. That is great for the long term motivation as you could have a sick passenger on one of your flights (land as soon as possible) or a VIP (don't make any mistakes). And you can hear the direct reaction of the passengers if you descend too quickly or if the temperature of the cabin is not right. The DC-6 on the other hand offers a cargo and a passenger version. It is also important to point out that PMDG simulates a DC-6 that flies nowadays and is therefore equipped with more modern radios. The A2A Connie is a true representant of the 40's and 50's.

Both have comprehensive manuals that give a great overview over the aircraft and its systems. Make sure to read Mitchell Glicksman's writing about the history of the Connie. It's very informative and excellently written.

As said in the beginning I like both aircraft a lot and do not want to miss them anymore. They are certainly worth their money. It's also a matter of personal taste. I have always been an admirer of the Douglas Propliners so it is no surprise that the PMDG DC-6 is my favourite at the moment. Then again it is no surprise that the Connie is named as the most beautiful aircraft of all times. You can't go wrong with both of them. And as a true Propliner fan you need both anyway :)

Greetings
Tim
 
I've been spending a lot of time with both of them lately - sort of ping-ponging back and forth between them - and I'm more struck by the differences than the similarities.

Not a direct response to your question (I'll try to get to the itemized list below), but the main thing that stands out for me is that they feel very different.

The DC-6 is very clearly a PMDG product. It's very formal. The flight engineer executes flows and checklists, and as pilot flying, you're relieved of responsibilities like handling the throttles (except on the ground, takeoff and short final) - which is in fact SOP for a complex multi-engine prop (PF calls manifold, FE works the throttles - you can see this in action in the YouTube video of Fifi landing at Oskhosh). Textures are photo-real, or give that impression.

The Connie is, for want of a better term, warmer and more artistic. The FE mutters to himself as he works, which keeps you current on system status, but the side effect is it feels more improvisational. And as noted, the Connie includes the cabin simulation (with lots of things that can happen), the career simulation, richer interaction with the environment (variable engine starts, window fogging, cabin temperature as an important and consequential thing to manage). Sounds are used very creatively to add to the immersion. Textures are hand-drawn and can feel a little lacking in detail, which is why the community likes to produce enhanced "worn" VCs for A2A aircraft (there are several for the Connie). Their best VC by far is the one for the Cherokee. The Connie isn't quite at that level, though it's better than the Stratocruiser, which could use a refresh.

The Connie can be flown with modern avionics but it feels a bit compromised that way (you can use a modern autopilot with altitude hold, but it's the default FSX/P3D one). The Sperry autopilot is quite limited - best used in level flight only. As Tim notes, it works best as a period aircraft.

The DC-6, on the other hand, feels right in modern airspace, though if you drop the GPS you can fly it in period style, albeit with updated radios. It's a later design with a more advanced period-authentic autopilot that can hold altitude and track a VOR, localizer or (if you have it) GPS course. It's also quite a bit faster than the Connie. The pace of development back then was such that a few years made for a more capable airplane.

I much prefer the flight dynamics in the DC-6. Both flight models are good but for me at least, Alexander Metzger has a way (as Rob Young did) of giving a simulated airplane a real sense of mass and inertia. It feels substantial. The Connie is a bit twitchy in the pitch axis - though that's characteristic of the real airplane, so some of what I'm expressing here is a personal preference.

Another personal note - I don't much like the voice acting on the Connie. I loved the voicing on the Stratocruiser and B-17. The actress who did Heidi for the Stratocruiser and the Cub had a brash, brassy 1940's quality that was exactly right (think of May Wynn and other Herman Wouk heroines and you'll get the idea). For the Connie, A2A turned more to family members, and while I'm sure they're very nice, gifted people, they're uneven as voice actors. Betty (voiced by Scott's daughter, I think, so I say this hesitantly, but it's how I feel) sounds young and modern - I keep expecting her to snap her gum in my ear, or take pictures of her food and post them to Instagram. Unlike the avionics, Betty fits better in modern repaints - perfect for charters to the Caribbean, not so much for 1940's line flying.

I agree with Tim about the startup on the DC-6 feeling much too scripted - that's the weakest element about the DC-6. While an A2A style full engine system simulation would be wonderful, I'd be OK if PMDG would just loosen up the scripting a bit and add more variability, so that the start or failed start didn't invariably happen at 12 blades, which seems to be the case at the moment.

My bottom line is - all my quibbles are minor, and they're both so good I wouldn't want to be without either one. If I had to pick, I'd lean a little more than the DC-6, because I'm not sentimental about the past, and because, while I love the idea of the Captain of the Ship career module in the Connie, in practice I wind up not using it. I spend enough time in my real life getting evaluated, and usually opt out of it in the sim. Also, the career parameters sometimes feel more GA than airline oriented (e.g. points off for a hard landing, even though at times planting the airplane firmly might be the better, safer option). Again, these are very personal notes - a classic case of YMMV. When I see the Connie, I decide it's so beautiful that that's the one I want to fly - how could you choose anything else? My real advice is - they're wonderful. Get both.

As for specifics:

1 and 2 - covered above.

3 - I'd give the edge to the DC-6 for external modeling. It's extraordinarily good. The Connie is no slouch, but the DC-6 is a bit more detailed.

4 - As noted, for the VC I'll give the edge to the DC-6. The detailing in the textures makes it feel more like a real airplane, to me at least. But the Connie has better environmental interactions - window fogging and such.

5 - Sounds - advantage Connie - the DC-6 is good but the Connie sounds are a "you are there" experience.

6 - Documentation - equally good though very different. The Connie manual is a beautifully produced book with an extensive history of the development of the airplane. There's good operational detail, but you might want to supplement it with a period POH. The DC-6 comes with a complete POH as well as two detailed tutorial flights (with a third on the way).

7 - Additional features - a tie. I don't use Captain of the Ship, though I might get around to it. I do use the automated cockpit crew in both airplanes. To me, that's more realistic than trying to be a one-man flight crew (plus, I hate micromanaging). They're both good.

One more consideration - the DC-6 is already profiled in SimBrief and PRO-ATC/X. For the Connie, you'd have to roll your own profiles (not hard to do). That may or may not matter to you. Noted for what it's worth.

Both airplanes are absolutely worth the price - no question.

Again, all of this comes down to personal taste, and at the end of the day what we're talking about is a choice between two of the best aircraft ever developed for a flight simulator.

Hope this is helpful.
 
I like the DC6, in my opinion really a great masterpiece in the sim world, but the Connie has few good points.

The system modeling is better in DC6, in the Connie is very limited but the main systems are still there.
The flight model is good in both the planes, but because the limited physics of P3d, it is not so "deep". Also both these plane behave very different in turbulences and the Connie occasionally seems to add stutters due to the "cots" audio system, in my experience the DC6 behaves more realistic in bad weather. When you start the DC6 engines in realistic mode is real challenging and different every time, depending from a lot of factors: weather, engine wearing, etc.
The Connie external model is very good, I have a doubt about her tail, but it seems that in the first versions of the Connie the rudders were more rounded. The DC6 is well made also, but the external aspect of the Connie is better in my opinion, PMDG is the best in simulating all the systems, but their 3d experience is not so good sometimes. Also, when you stop the engines and you are in the external view, the Connie's props behave very realistic and stop with a bit of inertia, in DC6 the props after you close the mixture levers at the end stop too suddenly with no inertia.
I have more complaints for both the DC6 and the Connie about the VC: the first has some ugly hires photos attached in the panels, this reveals how the PMDG design is poor sometimes, and the VC looks rather "flat" but almost all the systems are there and you can interact with them. The Connie VC is very poor compared to the real cockpit, just compare that to the photos of the real plane and you see that the Connie VC is realized in "economy", just "few" boxes (main panel, FE panel and Navigator panel) here and there and almost no more to make it more similar to the real thing.
The sounds are better in the DC6 in my opinion because more complex and near to the real thing, I don't like the internal Connie cockpit sounds and sometimes the "cots" sounds add some stutters in the sim (I don't know if this is a my problem or I'm sharing it with others).
The documentation is good in both the planes, but PMDG is improving and updating their DC6, while the Connie seems to be stopped just after P3d4 was realized.
The Connie and the DC6 were competitors in real life and now in the virtual flight sim, both are excellent planes and both are NOT perfect, but I feel the DC6 more realistic in general. I don't like the "cots" feature of the Connie because the virtual captain of the ship will be jailed for any problems the passengers may have for bad weather or hard landings, I don't think that a pilot could be jailed for this.
 
Vortex - I think all the points you were interested in have been well covered by the preceding responses which are very good summaries of these two simulation aircraft. In my opinion they are both excellent products and both have captured or reproduced very accurately the original aeroplanes. Both have good basic modelling, excellent textures outside and inside, very complete systems and systems operation (all of them), sound and handling in the sim. Both fly and handle on the ground like the real thing would have, the real thing being a large and heavy 4 engined pressurised piston aeroplane whose design evolved in the early 1940's. I think they both can be as complex or as simple as you want them to be. I have flown in both aeroplanes for real a long long time ago when I was young but never flown one personally. I remember well how they sounded etc. The only thing these models do not have is the smell, of avgas, oil and the aroma of sweat and fear (or vomit) that seemed to attach to the cabins of these aeroplanes even though they were kept scrupulously clean and sanitised, these old planes had a smell about them that modern aircraft do not, one of those things, this you do not get.

If you want to go down the route of really seeing what it was like to fly and operate these aeroplanes then for both you will need to spend a great deal of time, studying the manual so you understand the engines and other systems, getting to know and work with the checklists but more importantly understanding that both these aircraft had complex piston engines that required a great deal of care and monitoring and this is where the approach to either of them changes as far as I am concerned. This is what sets these sim models apart from all the others that have been before, they are very realistic, very complicated and you will soon appreciate that these were aircraft that required a team effort and other crew members in the cockpit to make them work. That being said you can just use the basic FSX key commands and go flying.

Both PMDG and A2A have produced a form of AI co-pilot/FE to assist you In A2A's case, or the Connie, a bit more icing in terms of other crew interaction to add atmosphere. The approaches to this is different but similar.

I think the PMDG system is the most authentic and while you can sit there effectively and have the 'other guy' do the work or a lot of it, it requires you really understand what they are doing anyway, just like the real thing, the Pilot Flying makes the call according to the checklist and the Pilot Not Flying provides a response and or action. PMDG allows you to make this a lot more complex and realistic via the menu for failures and realism, so if you want to have lots of random problems check the boxes but be prepared to know what to do about it and the appropriate actions. Having been a captain in a multi-crewed aeroplane I am quite comfortable with the PMDG approach and it seems normal to me! But while the AI copilot may be doing stuff, I am monitoring what is being done anyway.

The A2A Connie by comparison has more of this failure and systems management built in from the start so it is a bit more work and you will get more problems and if you use it a running assessment on your flight and hence knowledge of the aircraft. It is just as good but perhaps not as clinical, but that is fine too and not an issue.

In summary both A2A and PMDG have done a very very good job of reproducing these old piston engine airliners in every aspect and they are the GOLD Standard as far as simulation is concerned but I also understand for those not familiar with the era or this type of aeroplane they can be daunting or even intimidating modern jetliners by comparison are very simple and very automated and even the older jets were more complex than the glass cockpit generation, it was the nature of electro-mechanical and non automated systems, the pilots had to work them and understand them Quick example I flew a large multi-engine piston that had 168 items on the checklist that had to be learnt and memorised before you left the ground or took off a 747-400 basically had 10. There were no computer controlled engine units, automated navigation systems, automated pressurisation systems and built in automation in a whole lot of other eras that made pilot operation and control of them redundant in later aeroplanes.

Finally, all being said I can sum it up like this - What do you want to fly a Lockheed or a Douglas!
 
I have both and agree with most of the points already made. I have a very slight preference for the DC-6 simply because it's a type that's still in active use, and the modern avionics in the -6 make it preferable when simulating current operations (Everts, Red Bull). The flight dynamics seem more 'planted' and stable as well, and the systems modeling is a bit more intense, as you'd expect from PMDG. Unlike A2A, the virtual engineer in the DC-6 will set your power/prop/mixture for varying phases of flight if desired, as well as configuring boost pumps, cowl flaps, retracting flaps, gear, landing lights, etc. You'll most likely need to manually override the FE's cruise power settings if you're flying by the book, but that's a minor point that is easily accomplished with just a mouse click. Some people have complained on the forums the about the lack of period-correct radios. Admittedly a Bendix King digital stack does kill the mood a bit if you're simulating mid-century flights.

The Connie is fantastic in it's own right, particularly if you're simulating vintage ops with the FSX Calclassic scenery. As with the DC-6, you can select from multiple GPS installs if you're so inclined. If you're not using GPS, the panel still retains a classic appearance with only analog radios. You need to set your own power/prop settings in the Connie, although the flight engineer can manage the mixtures, boost, cowl flaps, pressurization and superchargers. Unlike the DC-6, the available 'Career' mode with crew/cabin interaction is a really neat touch that adds an extra element of entertaining realism to your flights. There are numerous repaints for the Connie and some excellent VC modifications with varying colors and degrees of panel and gauge wear & tear. The flight dynamics are noticeably more touchy than the DC-6, although they're still quite manageable and predictable. The Connie had hydraulically boosted controls IRL, so I assume that's a bit of a nod towards reality.

Sounds, external models, and documentation are equally good for both planes. A2A takes a more casual conversational style with their manuals, whereas PMDG's documentation is more serious and collegiate. Both are equally informative.

Good luck with your choice. If you like propliners, you'll be happy with either one. I'd say buy the DC-6 now and enjoy it while you wait for A2A's next sale...probably around the holidays...then purchase the Connie. I don't believe PMDG ever has sales, so their price probably won't change much in the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
These sort of detailed unbiased reviews are one of the many reasons I am proud to be a member of our amazing SOH community. I couldn’t agree more!

We are at a particularly fortunate time in Flight Simulation and I am grateful for all the developments we benefit from.

Best- C
 
This is just the sort of information I was looking for! Many thanks to everyone who's contributed (so far?). I have another question as a result of these replies: are system failures more random/natural in either of the aircraft?
 
I have another question as a result of these replies: are system failures more random/natural in either of the aircraft?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the A2A bird has a more robust failure model than PMDG. I believe the A2A failures can be more random and PMDGs failures are more linear (engines need overhaul at X hours, etc). Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong! I cannot speak from experience here, as I've only got about 30 hours in the Connie and 20 in the DC-6 so far, and I have yet to break anything or encounter any emergencies....*YET* being the operative word, since I'm certainly not a pro by any means. In either plane, if you're ham-fisted with the engines or exceed any airframe design parameters, you'll run the risk of triggering failures. If you're flying the Connie in 'Career' mode, you'll also add the possibility of passenger or crew emergencies that will demand an expedited landing.

Hope this helps. Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top