Oops! I think I just fed a troll.Of course. I can't say something isn't perfect without being labeled a troll... That's excellent.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

Excuse me? By calling names you're being the troll here. The rest of us have posted honest concerns with a fair deal of supporting evidence. I accept that some things weigh more heavily than others for most people, but calling people names simply because they don't agree is uncalled for.The rest of us are being pretty civil here. We may not agree, but that's life! That's what the forum is for. DF is putting out an excellent product, but the attitudes of some people around here are kind of annoying.By the by, please excuse my error, you are correct, the ATR is a Flight1 release.

This thread has outlived it's useful life.

^ Agreed... From a preview it's become a full-on discussion... I agree that it doesn't belong here. I do think the discussion taking place is valid in a different context, though.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

Daniel, take a look at the numbering, I wasn't replying to your post.

Erik, I wasn't replying to your post either. Guys, each post has a number in it indicating which post it's a reply to.

>

... thats why i didn't write in their forum about the>bad quality of the ATR model.

>Thats funny, someone who has never been on the flight deck, or>closer then the Dreamfleet Team was to the real ATR-72,>commenting about the way the ATR-72 model looks. I'm just>about 100% sure you haven't, and unless you are a real world>ATR pilot, been there. I doubt you know what your talking>about. After all, didn't the ATR company approve of the>model?>>I'd like to see any one flaming DF here to make a product of>the same quality. Admins, would it be possible to lock this?>Its already gotten out of control.With all due respect, you might want to remove that beta image from your sig if you want to speak to customers like that. Just because you don't think they are wrong doesn't give you the right to blast them like that. Remember, by sticking that emblam in your sig you are showing yourself to be a representative for a company. This is a mistaken notion, because you don't represent that company, but the fact is the public sees you as that way and you need to conduct yourself accordingly.What the problem here is that a product you tested might have some flaws and you feel it necessary to protect this product. I do know about beta teams and getting over-zealous in protecting the work they tested out, so I know where your coming from. I was in your shoes too. I was the over-zelous defender.Now about Daniel and Ericks claim(s). I will let the "public" have the final word on it, but I don't believe Daniel is just "nit picking" here. I know Daniel and if there is a single person on this forum qualifed to talk about a) the quality of a paint and :( the quality of a model it is him. Incrediable eye for detail. It would be a gross error in judgement to just throw away observations from him because you don't like what he says.Stepping off the soap box now.Disclaimer - Just to make everyone perfectly clear on this, I am not speaking for any organization, be it PMDG or AVSIM, or NOW, or the local PTA. A personal opinion. Sad state of affairs when I feel the need to post a disclaimer.

Oh, my bad. It's all good then, disregard. :)DPhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

I don't get it. FSCOF has limitations, so nothing can be 100%. I'll say that one more time- NOTHING CAN BE 100 %. If the the absolute detail down to the rivet could be modelled with all systems 100%, the only thing that would be posted is "why does my 3.6 ghz cpu overclocked to 6 ghz watercooled get 7 FPS". Ericks model is very good, not 100%, but has no compromises to make without the VC, sound package, etc included. That doesn't take away from the quality.Having purchased other developers products and listening to the forums, the common complaints are: low FPS; can't fly by the numbers; can't autoland. I've never been on an ATR or B727 that could autoland. The last B727 ride I had was a coupled approach following a Nasa U2 (callsign Mast 56) and the only time the autopilot was on the localizer was as it zig zagged thru it. I can bet that the complaints on the DF727 will be the autopilot can't track the localizer. No crap, sherlock. Wait til you let a 300 nav-o-matic fly one for you. I certainly wouldn't.The orignal title of FSCOF- where perceptions meet reality and reality loses.Wes

guys,have you all thought about this..The default boeing models were approved by boeing themselves... ;)I think you guys know what i'm thinking :)

The 727 is sans-VC because the customer didn't want one. We were fully ready and willing to make one and we will when it's re-released with SGA with the rest of the family next year.It's also not sans-sounds, either. We also included two soundsets, for the JT8D-7B and -15A.Kind of besides the point though, this thread isn't about my 727 and I don't want it compared to DF's, it seems kinda rude.

Blimey!! What on earth is all the fuss about? Did I slag your 727? Did you slag mine?Mind you, I wouldn't mind Daniel answering my email and letting me know what's wrong with that Visa paintjob :-)I think we're best leave em all to it and go fly a nice 727 for a bit :-) Let's face they're all nice 727's!http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Well make one. My bet is that like other developers, adding the VC requires much more computer with a complex aircraft, that it becomes a slide show. Other than the Falcon 50 for fs2k2, I don't recall a freeware aircraft with a VC that is comparable to something as simple as the PMDG 1900. As far as the sound sets go, there is no discernable difference between JT8 powered 727s. Only performance differences.The only sound differences I've noticed are with the Spey powered conversions in real life.As far as being rude, I think we've both crossed that line.Wes

ok, guys! i see, i have made a "rolling stone" .. i am sorry, i didn't want that...allthough most people agreed with me. For those who don't: i have said that their model is bad, not the VC or panel or anything else.I could say some more things about the panel and so on (and by the way, i don't work very near to a ATR, but on a 734!!!) but i don't want to critize something, which i am not allowed to, because my less FS experience (7years) is obviously not enough...The model is really bad.. look at the cockpit windows...comes close to a good AI model (just a joke) ... but don't forget.. they are perfect, there are no wrong things...dont take it all for serious, what i wrote :)http://www.igfly.com/images/betateam.jpg

>ok, guys! i see, i have made a "rolling stone" .. i am sorry,>i didn't want that...allthough most people agreed with me. For>those who don't: i have said that their model is bad, not the>VC or panel or anything else.>I could say some more things about the panel and so on (and by>the way, i don't work very near to a ATR, but on a 734!!!) but>i don't want to critize something, which i am not allowed to,>because my less FS experience (7years) is obviously not>enough...>The model is really bad.. look at the cockpit windows...comes>close to a good AI model (just a joke) ... but don't forget..>they are perfect, there are no wrong things...>dont take it all for serious, what i wrote :)>>>http://www.igfly.com/images/betateam.jpg:-roll