Black Square Planes Complexity Ratings
-
Hi Nick,
Looking forward to your MSFS 2024 addons. As a real world pilot, I am always looking for study level planes to enjoy the sim. Not having had any Black Square add-ons, how would your rate your planes in terms of overall complexity (i.e., engines, systems, failures, wear and tear) where the environment and pilot actions have an impact on the potential outcomes? What would be the most complex to least?
Thank you!
-
The Starship is the most complex and has the steepest learning curve. The Turbine and Piston Dukes are easier to fly single pilot, but they still have great systems depth, definitely deserving of the “study level” label.
I had the TBM in 2020, but I got bored with it and didn’t fly it much. Very nice avionics as I recall. As far as I know, it can be made to work in 2024, but there are some hoops to jump.
What the Black Square products have in common is, they show an attention to detail that you don’t see in many other products developed for flight sim.
-
Hi Nick,
Looking forward to your MSFS 2024 addons. As a real world pilot, I am always looking for study level planes to enjoy the sim. Not having had any Black Square add-ons, how would your rate your planes in terms of overall complexity (i.e., engines, systems, failures, wear and tear) where the environment and pilot actions have an impact on the potential outcomes? What would be the most complex to least?
Thank you!
@Bishop I hope to welcome you to the Black Square club soon!
I dislike speaking effusively of myself, so hopefully someone else might chime in, but I think the consensus is that myself and A2A are the two most "study level" GA developers for MSFS. If you're going by pure "complexity", then my aircraft come out on top, merely because a King Air probably has the system complexity of 10 or more Comanches.
While I struggled to put this on the marketing materials due to my own self consciousness, I believe that Starship is the most complex GA aircraft ever created for a Microsoft Flight Simulator.
If you would like to see the complexity of my aircraft for yourself, I have dozens of videos on the Just Flight YouTube channel all about how my aircraft work, and also all of my manuals are available for free (Starship's is over 200 pages now) so you can learn about the aircraft before you make your purchase.
Let me know if you have any more questions! I'm always happy to answer!
-
Bishop, in my view the BS Starship is up there with PMDG, Fenix and A2A in terms of complexity, I'm only 16 flight in and at 39 hours so haven't enabled failures yet but I understand it is also comparable to the other top tier developers I've mentioned.
As an aircraft it's got some legs on it so currently on a tour flying out of the UK to the far east, and the temperatures out there make one have to think about how fast you can start up to get the cabin temps comfortable and not to overheat the avionics. It's an interesting and capable plane.
Would recommend Starship thoroughly and I believe the 1.2 update will make it even better.
-
Hi Nick,
Looking forward to your MSFS 2024 addons. As a real world pilot, I am always looking for study level planes to enjoy the sim. Not having had any Black Square add-ons, how would your rate your planes in terms of overall complexity (i.e., engines, systems, failures, wear and tear) where the environment and pilot actions have an impact on the potential outcomes? What would be the most complex to least?
Thank you!
@Bishop said in Black Square Planes Complexity Ratings:
where the environment and pilot actions have an impact on the potential outcomes?
To specifically address this piece, all his aircraft incorporate thoroughly modeled systems where pilot actions (or inactions), and environmental effects, can cause significant damage/effects. If you’re running a turboprop on the ground (especially unimproved surfaces), expect FOD damage without the inertial separator. If you’re facing a tailwind, expect a hotter PT-6 start. If you exceed ITT or torque limits for prolonged time, expect engine damage. If you run the starter too much, expect an overheat. If you try starting the piston dukes when it’s too hot or cold, expect a lot of fiddling getting them to start. If it’s too hot out and there’s improper avionics ventilation in the Starship, avionics systems and screens will begin to fail.
Also, his aircraft have MTBF and scheduled (on demand) failures. MTBF mode can be sped up too. Basically if a part of the aircraft usually goes 2000 hours between failures, your chance of that part failing increases the closer you get to that point.
It’s really hard to put into words how detailed and complex his aircraft are because basically every part of the engine, every electrical bus, every circuit breaker, every potential failure mode (hundreds of them) are simulated. As nick mentioned I highly recommend reading the manuals for his aircraft to see just how much each one offers. For the aircraft I own I’d have to order them by Starship, Dukes, then TBM in descending complexity (not due to lack of effort anywhere, just the unique characteristics of each aircraft).
-
Thank you all for you input and Nick for the additional information.
The Starship is certainly impressive and shows the level of dedication that you have put into it. It has everything I am have been looking for in a general aviation plane. I just need to see if I can get used to the cockpit layout and the feel of it since the design was so different versus traditional cockpit layouts.
If Starship has the most in depth complexity, would you say that your King Air and Dukes Turbine would be next in line followed by the piston planes?
Regarding failures, it sounds like you can still cause a failure or damage if the plane is not operated correctly versus having to set failure options. Is that correct?
Finally, looking forward to getting your Commander 114 since I did my IFR training in it.
-
Thank you all for you input and Nick for the additional information.
The Starship is certainly impressive and shows the level of dedication that you have put into it. It has everything I am have been looking for in a general aviation plane. I just need to see if I can get used to the cockpit layout and the feel of it since the design was so different versus traditional cockpit layouts.
If Starship has the most in depth complexity, would you say that your King Air and Dukes Turbine would be next in line followed by the piston planes?
Regarding failures, it sounds like you can still cause a failure or damage if the plane is not operated correctly versus having to set failure options. Is that correct?
Finally, looking forward to getting your Commander 114 since I did my IFR training in it.
@Bishop the King Air is going to get a version update (professional release afaik) with a new exterior model iirc.
As for not operating correctly then yes, you can roast those engines if not careful, like starting with the covers on or just not watching your temps during climb, abuse them too much and you get chip detection warnings. FOD is a factor as well to watch for.
I treat my engines like a taxi driver treats their car.
