A few observations on the Cardinal 177

[Guest]

Nick,Thanks for the tip! I'll work on the GPS. The main reason I post here rather than on the DF site is that I get tired of logging on more than one site. It's hard enough remembering one user name and password! I browse the DF site but see little in the way of constructive criticism there that could be used to make it even better. Nearly all the posts gush over how great it is (good for you guys!) and a few refer to it as "perfect". I haven't seen a first release of anything that is perfect yet!David

[Guest]

First, this is not the right place to talk about this. We are not "keeping on eye" these forums as we are doing with our own forum. So, if you post this kind of things to our forum you'll get answers/help a lot faster. That's why we have our own forum... ps. This is not for David, he already posted his thoughts to our forum, but this is for general...Second, We are already explaining things of this thread in our forum. You can all read it here: http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/7607.html and hopefully get some satisfying answers...

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I made a post regarding the dihedral, tail size, and spinner size, and was pretty much brushed off by Lou in my thread on the Dreamfleet forum... That's why I made my comments here, and I resent being told where I can and can't make my comments....But I think people are taking my thoughts way out of proportion to the overall quality of the product... If I had to decide again whether to buy the Cardinal or not, I'd still buy it. Maybe it isn't perfect, but it's still of the highest quality... It has the first flight model I haven't felt compelled to tweak--I can't find anything that I'd change. The 3-d cabin exceeds the quality of most 2-d static bitmaps. Proportion and dihedral issues aside, the visual model is finely crafted and looks better in the sim than any of the static shots on the Dreamfleet website.If you think I'm unfair, take a look at this thread I posted on day 1....http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...orum=DCForumID8

[Guest]

Well, it's your lucky day. We are increasing the dihedral and release a patch.

[Guest KenG]

>I made a post regarding the dihedral, tail size, and spinner >size, and was pretty much brushed off by Lou in my thread on >the Dreamfleet forum... That's why I made my comments here, >and I resent being told where I can and can't make my >comments.... Who is telling you where you can or cannot post comments? Mikko is simply stating that if you post comments or questions and expect a response from the members of Dreamfleet, here is not the best place for it. No one is telling you not to post here. Just don't expect timely responses from the authors of the product. It is also unlikely that Tom would approve of the MSFS General Forum becoming the unofficial Dreamfleet support forum, even temporarily.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Don't get me wrong Ken.... After Lou's initial response to my thread in the Dreamfleet forum, and the opening of this thread, I thought I'd add to it. I originally posted about this issue, with some comparison shots, in Dreamfleet's forum. I didn't come in here asking for support, but at the same time, if we can't discuss commercial products in here, I believe we need to rethink whether we need these forums. Without such discussions, and public exposure of issues, however small, we're going to end up stuck in a world where the public purchases products on blind faith... It's odd my post on Friday didn't create as much enthusiasm--I still believe this product is a "buy", even more so after the announcement of a patch... That speaks for the quality of the product, and for the example I wish other software vendors would follow.-John

[Guest]

Strange no one picked up on this one:"Weird not having struts either but I certainly can't blame DF for that oversight!"COMMENT: As far as I know, the Cardinal has always been a "strutless" aircraft. Definitely not an oversight by DF!Keith

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"It is also unlikely that Tom would approve of the MSFS General Forum becoming the unofficial Dreamfleet support forum, even temporarily."Why not? We have for everyone else's products at one or another. :)As long as the discussions stay rationale and don't devolve in to slang matches (which some have on occasion - and which we have had to shut down), we have no problem with support questions being asked here. True, most users will get a more prompt response on the various vendor's own forums, but there is something to be said for seeing what your peers have to say as well (shared knowledge, hidden tricks and the like). As is said elsewhere in this thread, if you can't turn to a forum like this for assistance (instead, or inspite of a vendor's forum), then they would loose their usefulness pretty quickly outside of the MSFS product. If vendors can't or won't attend to questions here, that's okay too. Usually some knowledgable user will intercede.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

LOL Keith.... Good catch! I missed that comment, but I wonder if the person was trying to inject some humor? Once again, for those who don't know the Cardinal, I encourage y'all to check out cardinalflyers.com

[Guest DreamFleet]

David decided to break his "golden rule", and paid a visit to our forum. :-) Turns out the 177 is not a 172, not by a loooong shot. Also some other things are revealed.http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/7607.htmlRegards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Have to wait until tonight to see that thread... My WAN firewall blocks flightsimnetwork, and I can't find any plausible excuse for downing the firewall. In exchange for the removal of web tracking, I agreed that the firewall would be applied equally to all staff, including meself... Sounds like it's an interesting thread--can't wait...

[Guest]

Yes, it was my attempt at humor ;-), although I did have to go back and look at photos of a Cardinal initially to make sure it really didn't have struts. Sure hope the wing is held on by more than the two little bolts on the 152. I watched our mechanic do a 100 hour inspection on one of our planes and he said the struts are absolutely critical to the wing design of the plane - to the point that he does not recommend using the step on the strut to reach the fuel tank! (and he weighs less than I do!)David

[Guest]

HiI think the 177 is great and found the price very reasonable.Thanks DreamFleet.;)Ron

[Guest DNelson]

>Sure hope the wing is held on by more than the two little bolts on the 152.It certainly is. The wing structure of the 177 and the 152-172-182 series is completely different. The Cardinals have a one-piece wing spar that carries through the cabin, therefore, no external support is required. I haven't sat in a Cardinal since 1977 (and since I can't remember what I had for dinner last night, I don't remember much from 25 years ago), but I assume that the appearance at the top of the glareshield is quite different due to the wing spar crossing that area.Dan

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I had pretty much settled into accepting the Dreamfleet Cardinal "as is". But as I was reading the Dreamfleet Support Forum tonight, I caught a post from Lou which I feel mocked my comments regarding th Cardinal. I am posting a quote from that post along with my response here, since I suspect it will be deleted from Dreamfleet's forum. If my response seems angry--well, yes it is. I have little tolerance for payware vendors mocking my thoughts or anyone elses.... To set up my comments, Lou was responding to someone's question regarding whether Dreamfleet would release a Cardinal RG. He then got onto the topic of a 3-bladed prop, then somehow pulled my comments into the picture. Here's a link to the thread, while it lasts, followed by my post:http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/7643.htmlLou:"Let's face it, we've already got complaints that the wing dihedral is wrong on the 177 (it's actually very accurate) and some other "issues" based nothing more on what some folks "perceive" reality to be."Me:You know Lou, this is why I'm over at Avsim discussing these very issues--your comment is pretty petty and arrogant, and considering I paid Dreamfleet for this product, I'd expect a bit better attitude. You can argue my points all day and make a fool of yourself if you want--I've seen enough Cardinals to know that Dreamfleet's is a bit off.... If you don't like feedback and have problems with people's "perceptions", then I suggest you get out of the payware business. Feel free to pull in such "experts" like Simon Evans discussing parallax error and how the Cardinal pictures at the site I mentioned are distorted. I'd be happy to chat photography--I suspect I'm among the few here who has actually sold my work, as it's been a passion of mine for 30 years or so.I saw the three view drawings you posted--hardly convincing, even >if< they came from Cessna. I can get hobbyist 3-views from almost any A/C manufacturer, but unless they are builder's blueprints, they can have distortions of their own.You know it's funny, I posted several screenshots the first day the Dreamfleet Cardinal was released, praising Dreamfleet for the overall quality of the product. You pretty much ignored my praise, yet I saw you acknowledge others. But you have no problem arguing over my "perceptions".... How grand!Sorry, but your attitude is dismaying.... Rather than agreeing to disagree, your point seems to be "the vendor is always right." Pretty dismal business model, if you ask me.Delete this post, or join in the flame war which I'm sure will follow--I don't care. You don't sound like you have any clue about how to speak to anything but a wide-eyed Dreamfleet fan. Consider that an insult? No more than your comment regarding my issues.... I am curious whether Mikko's coming into Avsim claiming there's be a patch to fix the dihedral (he didn't mention the oversized rudder) was just to quell the discussion there. No matter, I won't be looking for it...