C310R and Honeycomb
Posted: Mon May 09, 2022 11:01 pm
<t>Not sure if this is the right forum... apologies if it's in the wrong place.<br/>
<br/>
I purchased the C310R redux for FSX a while back and loved it - my only issue was I didn't have a throttle quadrant (my problem - not Milviz's haha).<br/>
<br/>
I've been looking very hard at the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo (and the "soon to be released" Charlie), and am also looking at grabbing either X-plane 11 or MSFS and the corresponding C310.<br/>
<br/>
Does anyone here use the Bravo/Alpha or both? Is there anything I should look out for? How well do they integrate with the C310?<br/>
<br/>
YouTube is full of very "Rah! Rah! Rah!" videos of various hardware, but I'd appreciate some user input.<br/>
<br/>
VFR is where I'd like to do more of my flying, so I'm leaning towards MSFS, but X-Plane appears to be more stable, and apparently has more (better?) physics implementation. Not sure if that makes a difference, but info you can share would be helpful.<br/>
<br/>
Thanks in advance!</t>
<br/>
I purchased the C310R redux for FSX a while back and loved it - my only issue was I didn't have a throttle quadrant (my problem - not Milviz's haha).<br/>
<br/>
I've been looking very hard at the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo (and the "soon to be released" Charlie), and am also looking at grabbing either X-plane 11 or MSFS and the corresponding C310.<br/>
<br/>
Does anyone here use the Bravo/Alpha or both? Is there anything I should look out for? How well do they integrate with the C310?<br/>
<br/>
YouTube is full of very "Rah! Rah! Rah!" videos of various hardware, but I'd appreciate some user input.<br/>
<br/>
VFR is where I'd like to do more of my flying, so I'm leaning towards MSFS, but X-Plane appears to be more stable, and apparently has more (better?) physics implementation. Not sure if that makes a difference, but info you can share would be helpful.<br/>
<br/>
Thanks in advance!</t>