Early Review of Eaglesoft PA-30

[N400QW 205]

>>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:-)

[Guest ThrottleUp]

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

[Yoda967 23]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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.

[n4gix 4,947]

>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... ;)

[n4gix 4,947]

>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.

[Yoda967 23]

Bill,That's what I thought...but "procedural", you know. ;-)

[Guest YukonPete]

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.

[N400QW 205]

"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.:-)

[Bob Scott 7,716]

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

[WarpD 824]

>I have to say that I find the Eaglesoft tag-team circus act>in this thread a bit tacky.>So, publicly defending one's product from inaccurate statements is now a "tag-team circus act".>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.>The OP claims "it has bugs that should have been found in testing." Please note, that the OP never actually discusses any... just tosses out there that it's "buggy and possibly not throughly beta tested." The OP's statement regarding Active Camera is actually inaccurate. While we agree Active Camera won't work correctly without making a couple of changes to our aircraft.cfg... that's not a bug on our part, but rather a flaw in Active Camera. Funny how that's our fault. ;)>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.>Opinion's fine... as long as it's not completely inaccurate and misleading.>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.>That's great... really. I appreciate that you and so many others feel that I should work for free. ;) Perhaps you should start flying me around the world for free... since you're an ATP, and think working for free is a wonderful idea.>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V>Santiago de Chile

[virtualstuff 754]

>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. That should give you a headache to fly in the real plane :-lolhttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign1.jpg

[N400QW 205]

Bob, Erics original post contained errors. We simply pointed them out. In addition, his post implied that our product was somehow inferior unless it contained his favorite vendors avionics. In the past, this has been a favorite tactic of some who prefer a certain vendors product. Nothing wrong with personal choice but we felt it odd to apply to a brand new product as if we are required to include his favorite vendor stuff in our products.:-)As to our response to Pete. There was nothing "snotty or condescending" in our tone and we're sorry to hear you make such an accusation.We covered our policy with regard to so called "dual sim" versions when we released our first FSX aircraft and he either missed it or wanted to rehash the policy.We outlined it clearly once again for Pete, yourself, or others who may not understand the dynamics of our policy. It is crystal clear that we cannot and do not build "dual sim" or "two for the price of one" products despite the pleas of those who would have us work for free. Users must make mature purchase decisions on which or both Microsoft Sim version they wish to own and it's no different at EaglesoftThis means that Team Eaglesoft receives just compensation for its hard work and I know they deserve far more consideration than the "two for the price one crowd" would provide. This is an odd business at times but it remains a business. We've never promised, nor are we obligated to provide a "two for the price of one" product and we are not going to start now.

[Bob Scott 7,716]

>In the past, this has been a favorite tactic of some who>prefer a certain vendors product. Nothing wrong with personal>choice but we felt it odd to apply to a brand new product as>if we are required to include his favorite vendor stuff in our>products.:-)No, he didn't say a word about a need for you to put the RXP instruments in. He noted that the RXP instruments are far superior to the SimFlyers stuff, and he was swapping them. A point on which I agree...the SimFlyers GNS480 is predominantly just a repackaging of the default FS GPS unit, replete with its most troubling limitations (i.e. no ability to load/change nav track data after MSFS flightplan is loaded).I think it's not odd at all to want to put a realistic GPS nav unit into the add-on, unless of course you're trying to tell us that the real plane's GNS480 uses a flight plan route loaded during preflight from a flight planner...that can't be changed once inflight.>As to our response to Pete. There was nothing "snotty or>condescending" in our tone and we're sorry to hear you make>such an accusation.How it comes across has as much to do with the reader's impression as the writer's intent. As a reader, I think it came across as snotty and condescending, as if Pete needed to be taught a lesson by the great all-seeing Eaglesoft policy wonks. And I am not alone...>We covered our policy with regard to so called "dual sim">versions when we released our first FSX aircraft and he either>missed it or wanted to rehash the policy.Well, this forum is not your personal stomping ground in which other peoples' opinions are only eligible for publication up to the point where you enlighten the world with your policy. The poster's personal opinion of your policy is still his freely-stated opinion whether you like it or not.>We outlined it clearly once again for Pete, yourself, or>others who may not understand the dynamics of our policy. It>is crystal clear that we cannot and do not build "dual sim" or>"two for the price of one" products despite the pleas of those>who would have us work for free.Well, other developers are working more efficiently and releasing either dual-sim versions or reduced price dual-sim bundles, and that's a legitimate point to be made. Just because you won't do it doesn't mean that the fact your competition can and does release dual-sim versions isn't worthy of note...advantage to the competition. And anyone is certainly free to post their disagreement with your policies at least as many times as you're allowed to rehash what your policies are.>Users must make mature purchase decisions on which or both>Microsoft Sim version they wish to own and it's no different>at EaglesoftSome users own both FS versions, and view new add-ons that release without the ability to work with both versions as something less than desirable. Your policy is disagreeable or even unacceptable to some potential customers, especially in light of what your competition is doing. It's their right to take that view and punish you accordingly in the marketplace (by spending elsewhere).RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[N400QW 205]

"Your policy is disagreeable or even unacceptable to some potential customers, especially in light of what your competition is doing. It's their right to take that view and punish you accordingly in the marketplace (by spending elsewhere)."Absolutely correct Bob. We knew that when we made our policy decisons and we're fine with that. What we are not fine with is doing the hard work for free. Clear enough?If you believe that developers will continue offering "two for the price of one" products that are true FSX builds then we have some swampland you may be interested in.... There is a paradigm shift happening in this cottage industry and the genie is out of the bottle.The "two for the price of one crowd" along with our fellow developers, will face yet another dilemma as MS proceeds...that is to say that current FS9 to FSX ports and even new FSX builds may not work or have to be reworked in order to have new/unique features work in future MS releases.Surely you are not expecting your favorite developers to rebuild and rework your favorite arcraft/scenery yet another time for free??If so, you probably fall into the "two for the price of one" or "infinate free upgradeses" group and will have to attack your favorite developers for instituting policies similar to ours:-)