In Loving Memory Of
Founder of AVSIM Online
Hot Spots:Latest News & Homepage
File Library - What's New
Latest Product Reviews
Prepar3D Guide v1
FS9/FSX/P3D CTD Guide v3
FSX / P3D Config Guide
Bargain Hunters Forum
Classified, Want, Swap Ads
News (1999 to 2012)
Product Reviews (2006-2012)
Advertise on AVSIM!
Sim Site Rankings
The AVSIM Staff
AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!
New Tripacer from Bill's Custom Classics
41 replies to this topic
Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:00 PM
I'm locking this thread because I'm going to sleep and duece forbid anything is said here that would offend anyone else. I may unlock it in the morning...
Posted 01 June 2005 - 09:39 PM
>>And then there is our resident AOPA guy that seems to love to>jump into every payware thread and remind us how something>bigger and better can be had for nothing, but that's an old>story and getting older by the minute ( makes me want to>cancel my AOPA membership, to be quite frank). >Calm down! :D I highly support "payware"!!!!!L.Adamson longtime "AOPA" member
Inactive Member_Zevious Zoquis_***
Posted 01 June 2005 - 08:45 PM
Several of us did post on the Golden Eagles forum. THose posts were deleted. Again, I don't really have a problem with that as it's Bill's forum and he's entitled to do with it as he see's fit. I was a little dissappointed actually with the response to the few (quite polite) posts there regarding the issue though. There was reference made to the "anal retentive" brigade and so forth. I would certainly understand if the post had been impolite or what have you but they really weren't. They were more along the lines of people wondering if maybe they had something set up wrong...
Posted 01 June 2005 - 08:33 PM
>Bob, with all due respect, I may not have flown a real>Tri-Pacer, but I can look at an operating handbook and see>that the real plane has a given climb rate (for example) and>then take the sim version out and see that it has a climb rate>double (or more) that of book value and I can make the>assumption that something somewhere is off. I don't make the>assumption the FM is off - it could be my installation - but>something is off. If you consider it "whining" to make note>of that then so be it. I'm a huge fan of Bill's stuff. I>guess if simply mentioning an aspect of the add-on that I have>questions about is enough to warrant this kind of response (I>don't think I'm "AR" at all about this stuff) then I'll keep>my thoughts to myself. Perhaps someday these forums will>consist of nothing but a litany of threads endlessly repeating>the phrase "Great plane" over and over again...>>I think the appropriate place to mention something like the power issue on the Tri Pacer first, is on the web site that belongs to the person that created the product. Then, if one doesn't get any response, then mentioning it on a forum like this would be appropriate. I have purchased plenty of products for FS over the years and the vast majority of them were works in progress. The list of products that I have bought that needed updates and fixes and tweeks would boggle the mind.( In fact many of them are products that people rave about today). I have yet to purchase a new piece of software that is perfect. I can understand someone thinking that something is not quite right with a new product, but I see so many negative comments on this web site, and it seems that there are a small group of people that just seem to thrive on bashing new releases of software. They have no idea how much work goes into some of this stuff, and they probably have never created anything in their lives. I think when a new product comes out, people should just take a deep breath, calm down, and give the author a chance to make some adjustments before they start acting like they were ripped off.
Inactive Member_Zevious Zoquis_***
Posted 01 June 2005 - 06:08 PM
Bob, with all due respect, I may not have flown a real Tri-Pacer, but I can look at an operating handbook and see that the real plane has a given climb rate (for example) and then take the sim version out and see that it has a climb rate double (or more) that of book value and I can make the assumption that something somewhere is off. I don't make the assumption the FM is off - it could be my installation - but something is off. If you consider it "whining" to make note of that then so be it. I'm a huge fan of Bill's stuff. I guess if simply mentioning an aspect of the add-on that I have questions about is enough to warrant this kind of response (I don't think I'm "AR" at all about this stuff) then I'll keep my thoughts to myself. Perhaps someday these forums will consist of nothing but a litany of threads endlessly repeating the phrase "Great plane" over and over again...
Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:47 PM
>Heh. Really, if you downloaded my retro panel, you now have a>virtually old plane. :)>>Dan>I stand corrected, Dan! :)Great job on the panel, it's a beauty.Jim
Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:46 PM
JimmiYou're one of Bill's biggest supporters--I probably wouldn't have noticed the Challenger were it not for your posts. I think most people with product's like Bill's would welcome your comments.I still am hoping Bill will target more Microlights. His Challenger is so real, I can almost swear I can smell the paint and the engine exhaust...-John
Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:27 PM
For what it's worth, I played around with the thrust_scalar variable some. The default was 2.1. I found that something in the 0.8 to 1.2 range is probably about right. I settled for 0.9 which "felt" about right and made it fly quite close to the numbers. Anyone who managed to grab this plane and find it overpowered should play around with that setting because it really works - take off distance goes up, climb rate and cruise speed goes down which is just what I wanted, and the ratio between the three seems just about right (ie. as soon as cruise speed became too low, take off distance became too high etc.). I tend to fly "light", usually just the pilot and about 50% fuel so you may want to try higher values. Also haven't even touched the float version yet."and instead of just asking how the power could be reduced and reducing it ( which is fairly simple to do) , the whining starts."Actually the funny thing is, I never saw any "whining" anywhere. Sure, someone used the term "rocket assist" to describe the take off performance, but that's hardly whining. I for one only stated that I found the plane overpowered, and that I could take off in 500 feet. According to the charts on the net, take off roll is 1035 ft. 500 feet difference - that's hardly nitpicking, is it? However I'm getting close to that now with the modified thrust_scalar so it's no big deal.
Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:11 PM
>I'm grateful to this thread, though. I have revisited Brian's>Tri-pacer and downloaded the retro panel, a new sound package,>and paint scheme. I have a virtually new plane.Heh. Really, if you downloaded my retro panel, you now have a virtually old plane. :)Dan
Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:10 PM
"By the way, don't bother flaming me, because I couldn't care less. ;)" After I learned that this thread is intact--no posts were deleted, I don't think anything merits your comments or Bill's in his own forum. Whether one's nitpicking products or nitpicking personalities, it's still nitpicking--such as your AOPA comment."and I hope all the whiners on this forum, can stop whining and grow up."That's a worn out clich
Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:06 PM
It's a true shame Bill got driven off - hopefully he will come back.
Posted 01 June 2005 - 04:51 PM
Actually, I don't blame Bill in a way, because he is probably tired of the childish nitpicking that goes on in some of these threads, regarding almost every aspect of MSFS and the add-ons. The grass is too green, or not green enough, the rain drops are too big or too small, the wings don't shake enough, the engine noise doesn't have the proper sound, the sky isn't the right shade of blue, the milky way is in the wrong place..... yada, yada, yada, ....you name it, and someone will get on one of these threads and whine and whine about it. It's like when someone spends a few months creating a piece of furniture to give to someone else as a gift, and works on it day and night. Finally comes the day he was anticipating while creating this gift, when he can actually give it to the person , and the person looks at it a moment and says, " Gee, there is a nick in the wood, on this one side, can't you fix that"...So the Tri-Pacer experts today ( I wonder how many here have any actual stick time in a Real Tripacer and BTW, I have flown one ) decided that the plane is overpowered, and instead of just asking how the power could be reduced and reducing it ( which is fairly simple to do) , the whining starts. I currently fly 2 of Bill's Planes and they are the most fun I have had flying a plane in MSFS, since I started this hobby. He puts all kinds of creativity into the planes and every detail about the aircraft, and the scenery, and practically gives them away, when you factor in all the free goodies that come with the plane. And then there is our resident AOPA guy that seems to love to jump into every payware thread and remind us how something bigger and better can be had for nothing, but that's an old story and getting older by the minute ( makes me want to cancel my AOPA membership, to be quite frank). I hope that Bill gets his planes back up on the web site, since I want to buy a few more, and I hope all the whiners on this forum, can stop whining and grow up. By the way, don't bother flaming me, because I couldn't care less. ;)
Inactive Member_Zevious Zoquis_***
Posted 01 June 2005 - 04:16 PM
ah yes, that's my mistake. I forgot the link in the first thread here was direct to the tri-pacer page. I think my mention of the fact that a few posts had been deleted might be part of the problem. I didn't really intend it as an indictment of any sort - it's Bill's forum and if he feels the need to delete items that's his choice. I just didn't think there was anything in the deleted comments that really warranted deletion. Anyway, I do like the Pacer alot and hope it's available again soon so more folks can enjoy it...
Posted 01 June 2005 - 04:08 PM
It's a shame we have to go through this sort of thing almost every time some new package comes out. But I agree, I think the forums have been almost univeral in their praise for Bill and his work.Maybe there's another issue that caused the plane to be pulled. I certainly don't see anything posted here that would warrant that. Hopefully we're just being too sensitive.I'm grateful to this thread, though. I have revisited Brian's Tri-pacer and downloaded the retro panel, a new sound package, and paint scheme. I have a virtually new plane.Jim
Posted 01 June 2005 - 03:44 PM
I don't think the aircraft was removed because of the (few) negative comments here..."The package obviously has problems that we did not intend or realize. It may be returned as a saleable aircraft if and when we feel it is satisfactory and if we decide to continue."Don't know if he's refering to the power issue or something completely different..Since Bill has told us how to change the performance, anyone can change it to suite their needs so I don't see what the problem is. I'll be experimenting some tonight. The specs for the PA22-160 are:t/o roll: 1035 ft.Climb rate: 800 fpmTop speed: 123 kts TASI was airborne after 500 feet with the stock configuration so I'll try lowering the performance and see what happens."Frankly, I'm getting tired of these "developer-meltdowns"."That's a good name for this recent "trend". Seems AVSim and other sites have been leaving a trail of nervous wrecks behind them lately :-eek I think everyone needs to calm down and realize that it's just a computer game. It's meant to be FUN :-lol