Early Review of Eaglesoft PA-30

[ejoiner 21]

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

[ejoiner 21]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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.

[N400QW 205]

>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:-)

[B777ER 2,484]

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

[N400QW 205]

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":-)

[mnmon 0]

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

[N400QW 205]

>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:-)

[ejoiner 21]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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

[ejoiner 21]

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

[thefrog 18]

>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

[N400QW 205]

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:-)

[WarpD 824]

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

[ejoiner 21]

Thanks for the pointer! Will go there now. Appreciated.