Sign in to follow this  
ejoiner

Early Review of Eaglesoft PA-30

Recommended Posts

I purchased the Eaglesoft PA-30 tonight and thought I would share my early thoughts. I use FS9.1 and installed the FS9 variant of the PA-30. First impression...buggy and possibly not throughly beta tested.Here are my observations though your mileage may vary.Installation - no issues. Worked great like all F1 wrapper products. 1. External model - brilliant. Great stuff.2. Paint schemes - brilliant. Same deal. Great. I particularly loved the old school red and orange schemes. Thats what sold me on the product. I love old school airplanes. 3. 2D panel art - below average to average. Not very 3D in dimension and with the WT Red N207ES scheme, the 2D panel was stretched and distorted. The bitmap is not on par with the rest of the Eaglesoft fleet. 4. In several cases the "exit" area of the configuration panel did not work. The panel had to be shut down with key stroke ALT 7. 5. My Active Camera 2004 did not function with use of this airplane. I switched to the default C-172 and Active Camera worked fine. This is a SHOW STOPPER for me. 6. The SimFlyers GNS480 is simply inferior to any RXP product you want to plug in there. I will be installing the RXP GNS430 in as soon as I get time. 7. instrumentation - pretty good. I also liked the blue lighting on the instrumentation, though I will probably swap out a few default gauges to RXP T or N gauges.8. I at least couldn't get the STEC 55 to turn on. And I did read the instructions!Over all, this looks like a very nice GA airplane. However, it has bugs that should have been found in testing. I think with a minor patch and some extra RXP work, this can be a GREAT airplane. I'll be tweaking on my own, but out of the box, the PA-30 needs work.Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Couple of things to add.1. The virtual cockpit is very nice. Great job.2. The animations are very well done. 3. While I like the blue instrument lighting, some option for pale yellow or red would have been a nice touch, similar to Dreamfleet configuration tools, but thats only my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric, thanks for your observations but we have to say that a few are in error. While 2D panel art is a personal preference we'll address the supposed Red N207ES 2D distortion...3. A closer look will reveal the fact that we included a selectable 2D Widescreen Panel option for those with widescreen monitors to avoid 2D Panel distortion of gauges. Oval instead of Round. The Widescreen panel is 1680X1050 while the default, non widescreen panel is 1280X960 4:3 ratio. Perhaps you confused the two?4. The Preflight Gauge Exit mouse area is a bit small but works well.5. We included a number of clickable panel options as outlined in the Cockpit Layout Manual and it appears that active camera doesn't like our Z order. There is a panel.cfg edit posted in our forum which restores ac use. Check there.6. Again personal preference on GNS units and users are free to install their favorite GNS units any time they please.7. Sounds like you wanted us to provide another vendors avionics in this plane. Ain't gonna happen:-)8. Reread the extensive documentation and we're sure you'll find the A/P switch right there on the main panel:-)Our PA-30 Beta Test staff gave this bird an extensive beta test and it passed rigorous testing so please don't insult them or us by a biased opinion.Finally, the Twin Comanche is not just another platform for third party avionics products as you would like to have it. Tweak all you want but we say it's a great product without your RXP tweaks:-)Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Couple of things to add.>>1. The virtual cockpit is very nice. Great job.>>2. The animations are very well done. >>3. While I like the blue instrument lighting, some option for>pale yellow or red would have been a nice touch, similar to>Dreamfleet configuration tools, but thats only my opinion. Ha ha, can't get away from endorsing DF and RXP huh?Fact. The night lighting on the Twin Comanche is authentic from real world shots. Accuracy is what we went for and accomplished rather than just another platform for third party avionics:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron...congrats on the release. Still have quite a hunger for something else though that is more tasty. Let me see...oh yes, a Citation X for FS9...hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Eric! The CX2.0 for FS9? She's being worked on as we speak. As grandma used to say.."a watched pot never boils":-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't bought the PA-30, and don't know yet if I will. However, I do want to thank Eaglesoft for giving me the option of purchase for FS9! I figure another 2 years for FS9 for myself. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Haven't bought the PA-30, and don't know yet if I will.>> However, I do want to thank Eaglesoft for giving me the>option of purchase for FS9! I figure another 2 years for FS9>for myself.>>> MikeThanks Mike, we do intend to build for both FS9 and FSX going forward. We assume that FS9 development will reach a point of diminishing returns just as FS2002 development did.No one can predict when that may occur so we'll continue for the near term:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an endorsement of RXP and DF. Im just a guy who liked what I bought. I've purchased Eaglesoft stuff that I loved as well Ron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Eric, The reference to other vendors products and techniques into our product seemed odd to say the least. :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, do you know why (and you may not) know why Active Camera does not work with the PA-30? It works with virtually every other plane in my hangar. I'd appreciate someones input on that one. Otherwise, a great plane. I especially love the head movements of the pilot. Very, very realistic!Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>5. My Active Camera 2004 did not function with use of this>airplane. I switched to the default C-172 and Active Camera>worked fine. This is a SHOW STOPPER for me. It's an excellent plane but I came across the same problem with Active Camera. I posted my problem on the appropriate Eaglesoft support forum and it was answered and resolved very quickly. I wish all developers provided this level of support.Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric, we answered in the first reponse. As outlined in the extensive documentation, we use quite a few IFR/VFR and other popup type panels to acheive our goal. This require a certain Z order to the panels.It appears that the Active Camera application does not play well with certain Z orders. Active Camera users may use the fix in our forum. The fix is to simply edit the Z order in the panel.cfg as outlined in our forum. Have a read for yourself:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially odd when you consider that none of the current RXP products simulate avionics that are in the actual aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>5. My Active Camera 2004 did not function with use of this>>airplane. I switched to the default C-172 and Active Camera>>worked fine. This is a SHOW STOPPER for me. >>It's an excellent plane but I came across the same problem>with Active Camera. I posted my problem on the appropriate>Eaglesoft support forum and it was answered and resolved very>quickly. I wish all developers provided this level of>support.>DaveThanks for the kind words Frog:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im happy with my ES Citations on FS9 and hope you guys will make a Phenom (that new Brazilian bizzjet!)Hee hee :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric,I found the PA-30 to be excellent in all respects. By the time I bought mine, the Active Camera fix was posted and it was an easy thing to correct.The only "gripes" I had with the aircraft was that the electric trim switch didn't work in the VC. Worked fine in the 2D panel. The Simflyer GNS480 fonts seemed to lack crispness to me, and I'm not terribly happy with that, but the plane is definitely worth the $30.I flew it for 1.2 hours this afternoon, and shot an ILS approach. I thought she flew beautifully, even in bumpy air. After so many hours in the King Air, I'm going to have to adjust my thinking to get back into a piston twin, but seriously, this is one sweet aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kurt! High praise coming from a King Air driver:-)She's a fun aircraft with just enough complexity to keep things interesting for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The only "gripes" I had with the aircraft was that the>electric trim switch didn't work in the VC. Worked fine in>the 2D panel.Considering that all the 2d switch does is "move and make a click sound," the fact the 2d is fixed isn't really too critical... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>4. In several cases the "exit" area of the configuration panel>did not work. The panel had to be shut down with key stroke>ALT 7. This gauge is forced to stay open when switching to spot view. As a result, you occasionally have to click on the "EXIT" button twice: once to get the sub-window's focus, and once again to actually activate the button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the Eaglesoft aircraft and enjoy flying them from time to time. I've purchased a number since they started out. I even purchased the FSX Beechjet on it's release day. But the fact Eaglesoft charges you the full rate on both if you want the FSX and FS9 version has turned me off! I use both FS9 and FSX. To be able to use the aircraft in both platforms will cost $60! Why can't they offer one version for $30 or both for something like $40? Other developers offer both platforms at the one price. Buying the Eaglesoft PA-30 for both platforms actually costs more then the Lvl-D 767. I owned the 767 for FS9 ( About $35 ) and got an upgrade to FSX for about $15. Now what aircraft is for more complex and the better value? So I will take my $$ elseware from now on. This is only my opinion and I wish all the best to Eaglesoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why can't they offer one version for $30 or both for something like $40?" Pete, you paid Microsoft for FS9, then turned around and paid Microsoft for FSX. Why didn't they build two sim versions for the price of one??The reasons are quite simple. It's called W-O-R-K.The amount of work involved to build for two different simulator platforms is the reason for the costs to the users. There are some developers who simply haven't begun FSX development because the workload and complexity is quite a challenge.You also ignore the fact that every FSX aircraft we've released has been accompanied by a 30% Percent Discount Coupon for 30 Days!We can't speak to other developers reasons, prices, or methods. What we can say is that we cannot and do not build so called " Dual Sim Versions" for one price. Instead users must make a purchase decision about whether they wish to own one or both versions of our aircraft just as they do with Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 or X.At the end of the day, Team Eaglesoft has never promised two for the price of one and the Team will not do the work of two for the price of one. Looks to us like you've made your purchase decision and that's fine with us. Perhaps now you understand our answer to to your question a bit more clearly.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I find the Eaglesoft tag-team circus act in this thread a bit tacky.It's one thing to help...quite another for the developer to come in here and accost those who critique a product they've bought from them, or to accuse someone of having some sort of an agenda with another developer just because they like using RXP's high-quality stand-alone add-on avionics better than what comes in this and most other stock models.What users see and report is what they see and what they choose to report. What they like or dislike is what they like or dislike, regardless of what the Eaglesoft tag team may think about it.If YukonPete had any intention of ever going back for another Eaglesoft product, I doubt that survived Ron's rather condescending reply. The fact that a number of respectable developers do indeed sell add-ons for dual versions of FS gives the discriminating buyer something to compare to. Stating your reasons (and in a rather snotty tone) doesn't negate that fact and the competitive edge it gives other developers willing to provide products that bridge across the FS9-FSX version transition.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this