Well I'm really excited now (hopefully wing flex will be included this time around). Don't forget those of us still using FS9 aren't running 3.4gig Dual Core machines. Please be mindful we won't have something like that until after Vista is released. Framerates are of the utmost importance on the FS9 version. A great example of this is toying around with this new Hawker and I may as well be taking screenshots in some areas...

Ricardo what you have here is pretty darn close. No there's not a fully functioning FMC but many features are now included that weren't there before. It's hard to go into detail but let's say you can punch in your route and see it displayed on the ND screen (there's more to it but I haven't had the chance to confirm all features). I haven't fully played with everything yet but this thing is far more detailed than anything ES has done before (the exception being the Cirrus aircraft). Ricardo you'd like this one trust me.

As Ron has stated, if you like this wait until you see the Citation X update.Dillon, I'm glad we were able to figure out what was causing the CTD for you. Check our forums from time to time to see if I've posted that we've gotten things worked out with SSTsim.For those requesting a fully functional FMC, in all seriousness... be careful what you wish for. :)

The Beechjet/Hawker sounds nice but I'll have to stay away from it if it can't run smoothly on anything lower than a 3gig machine. I like flying into major airports with light jets, there's no reason an FS9 aircraft should have framerate problems at this point. When I look at aircraft like FeelThere's Legacy and DreamFleet's offerings I know something like the Beechjet should be doable. Even if you take into consideration the Eaglesoft Cirrus aircraft, there's no excuse for the Beechjet. The Cirrus displays are way more complicated than anything in a Beechjet cockpit.If Eaglesoft get's the performance issues taken care of I'll buy. Other than that we all may have to live with developers making excuses as their main priority is FSX.

>The Beechjet/Hawker sounds nice but I'll have to stay away>from it if it can't run smoothly on anything lower than a 3gig>machine. I like flying into major airports with light jets,>there's no reason an FS9 aircraft should have framerate>problems at this point. >>When I look at aircraft like FeelThere's Legacy and>DreamFleet's offerings I know something like the Beechjet>should be doable. If Eaglesoft get's the performance issues>taken care of I'll buy. Other than that I'll sit this one out>until after Vista and my new PC arrives...>Try it on your machine and if it doesn't perform to your expectations there is a 30 Day, no questions refund policy in place.In other words check performance on your own hardware before deciding if what you hear is correct:-)

>When I look at aircraft like FeelThere's Legacy and>DreamFleet's offerings I know something like the Beechjet>should be doable. Even if you take into consideration the>Eaglesoft Cirrus aircraft, there's no excuse for the Beechjet.> The Cirrus displays are way more complicated than anything in>a Beechjet cockpit.>>If Eaglesoft get's the performance issues taken care of I'll>buy. Other than that we all may have to live with developers>making excuses as their main priority is FSX.>I'm not sure you can single out Eagesoft here. I have a well known DreamFleet offering that gets worse frame rates than any any of my Eaglesoft offerings.So many things can effect low frame rates: The FS.cfg, the FS settings, the video card, power supply, processes running, etc etc etc. One person can 'zip long' with 20+ rates, while another with an 'equal' machine can only muster 10+. Go figure,...every machine is different, and every ones quality expectations while flying are also.I have a couple designers products that simply get good rates for most every one, but those are not exactly complicated aircraft, albeit I enjoy them allot.

Just noticed Chris's machine is similar to my development machine... 3.0 AMD and ATI X800Pro, 1GB PC2700...No hotrod but useful for estimating what users can expect :-)

"So many things can effect low frame rates: The FS.cfg, the FS settings, the video card, power supply, processes running, etc etc etc. One person can 'zip long' with 20+ rates, while another with an 'equal' machine can only muster 10+. Go figure,...every machine is different, and every ones quality expectations while flying are also."Well said Brian!:-)

Ricardo I stand corrected. The FMC is still basic... :-(Looking over the manual I thought it had more features than it hase, sorry. The plane overall is still good...

Does the Beech offer a 2d cockpit only version? I never fly VC unless it's a small VFR plane, and I like the FPS boost I get by not having a VC loaded. I really like the Eaglesoft CII, but would also like a more sophisticated systems plane which he Beech seem to be. Mike

I looked at this bird on a friend

Well Chris I have to agree with you for the most part although I still want Eaglesoft to develop for FS9 well into the foreseeable future.I decided to hanger my new Beechjet/Hawker because the performance hit was too great. I'm not going to do any major hardware upgrades until I make the move to Vista/FSX. I think that speaks for allot of FS9 holdouts. These people don't have 3+gig Dual Core machines. Most people still running FS9 have their FS9 boxes (around 2-2.8gig with 1gig of RAM if that). I know there's some users that have higher spec machines and those are the ones who should buy this. If you have a machine lower than a 3gig box understand what your getting into.I find it odd myself looking at PMDG's 744, DreamFleet's Baron, and many others out there that a Beechjet without an FMC can be this hard on a system. It makes no since but I'm not a gauge programmer. Even looking at Reality XP and whoever did the Cirrus avionics it's hard to understand what's happening here. Ricardo was right above to mention the FMC which I thought had more to it. With a full avionics compliment I could give it a pass but with a standard Avionics suite (well detailed I might add) with no weather radar and no FMC, I can't justify the resource hit.Eaglesoft you guys do great work. I'm not trying to slam you guys here but my bird is officially in the hanger as unflyable. I won't ask for my money back as I don't mind supporting you guys. I most likely won't be able to enjoy the Beechjet/Hawker until after I purchase FSX which will be another purchase of the same bird from you guys. I see I'll need an FSX built box to run an FS9 add-on, oh well...

As mentioned in countless threads over the years, FPS and sim performance is the product of a number of variables not the least of which is hardware, memory, and plain old "horsepower" Many of the complaints we hear, whether it is our products, another developers products, or most recently FSX, appear to be the result of increased software complexity being run on older or slower hardware/memory combinations. While we have a large number of satisfied users of our Beechjet/Hawker 1.5 in both FS9 and FSX it appears that a few of you are not impressed and would not purchaase based on your own or some friends hardware setup. That is a reasonable approach and we understand completely. If anyone is disatisfied with performance on their own machine, by all means take advantage of Eaglesofts 30 day, no questions asked, refund policy. Please consider the fact that what is represented here is not the "whole story". At least consider the fact that a large number of folks ARE satisfied and ARE enjoying the Beechjet/Hawker 1.5 in BOTH sim versions.:-)Finally, we are always disapointed when simmers have difficulty with our products so please take the time to contact Flight One Customer Service if you wish to take advantage of our policy.

> Does the Beech offer a 2d cockpit only version? I never>fly VC unless it's a small VFR plane, and I like the FPS boost>I get by not having a VC loaded. I really like the Eaglesoft>CII, but would also like a more sophisticated systems plane>which he Beech seem to be.>>> Mike>there is no performance boost by not having a VC

Is it assumed people are satisfied because their nice enough not to say anything or is there somewhere I can read testaments to this wonderful new addition to Eaglesoft's stable??? :-roll I really would like to know just how many people running a system under 3gigs think this add-on runs as well as your Cirrus or PMDG's 744 (which is way more complicated by the way)...