Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dougal

Which MD-80 to get....

Recommended Posts

Seems there are two 'Pro' versions of the MD80.... The Coolsky 'Super 80 Pro', and the Leonardo 'Fly The Maddog Pro'.I've seen some, but would really appreciate a few more opinions prior to any puchase.Thank you kindly, and happy new year!

Share this post


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

I only have the Super80 Pro by Coolsky/F1 and it's decent. It's really FPS friendly, compared to other payware jetliners...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both and prefer the Coolsky over the Maddog. It's all personal preference, in the collsky you don't have 100% 3d cockpit but the performance more than makes up for it. Either camp is good to be in, so with either I don't think you will go totally wrong even though I lean more towards the Coolsky/Flight1 Md-80. Support is awesome over there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems there are two 'Pro' versions of the MD80.... The Coolsky 'Super 80 Pro', and the Leonardo 'Fly The Maddog Pro'.I've seen some, but would really appreciate a few more opinions prior to any puchase.Thank you kindly, and happy new year!
Hey Dougal; ok - I'll have a stab. I've a coupla hundred in the CoolSky prior to switching to the Leonardo version, and I'll likely get some flak from afficionado's from either camp, but these are my own observations, and some bits may be erroneous; and are all based upon my fantasies, ok?1). Both aircraft have teething issues, which means - log in to both forums, ask questions and read, read, read. You decide what's important. I expect more patches for both aircraft in the near future. Download all the documentation. CoolSky Super80 Pro $54.95 Documentation is about the same from both. User and Operations manuals supplied as pdf's.Much better training interface than Leonardo's. More 3rd party liveries are available for the CoolSky version. Much more developer presence and user support on their forum. You can try the CoolSky version before you buy. - Use it!Overhead and instrument panels are flat surfaces with minimal use of 3d knobs/switches/buttons (that don't click).Too many more features/pros/cons to list. Go here:- http://s80.flight1.net/product.htm LeonardoSH Maddog 2008 Pro $68.00~Functionally the LH version is much closer to the r/w aircraft than the CS version.Adequate/good Tutorial flight documentation.~ 44 liveries downloadable from main site.More aircrew forum members so you get more fact and less opinion, but less developer support.All doors/exits/ladders open/close/extend. Every sound is configurable. Not so on the CS version.Every knob/switch/button is in 3D from any angle, and is fully functional.Automatic (and configurable) failure generator.All night lighting works as you would expect.Again, too many features, pros/cons to list. Go here:- http://www.flythemaddog.com/features.phpAll told - if you want to just startup and fly, the Coolsky aircraft is very tolerant of limited cockpit procedure, and so it allows for quick, no fuss flights. There are folks around who won't like this, and so a purist will want the LH Maddog. For e.g. one can easily get a hot start if the egt isn't monitored on the LH version. Not so with the CS - in fact it can be started with the pneumatic x-feeds shut off. There are other "little" things like this that many folks will overlook - and may not even be aware of that it's wrong (as I was).. but there's a lot of folks that won't.I was happy with the CS MD80 for two years. I am now happier with the LH MD80, as it has greater challenge and more functional realism. It costs more, but you get an awful lot of aeroplane for the price. My 2cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was happy with the CS MD80 for two years. I am now happier with the LH MD80, as it has greater challenge and more functional realism. It costs more, but you get an awful lot of aeroplane for the price. My 2cents.
How are the FSX FPS compared to the CoolSky version? I own the CS version (the original and Pro) and the LH MD80 looks like it might be worth buying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have experience with the Leonardo MD83 so I'll speak to that: I find it is an incredibly in depth systems simulation, with features like a weather radar, complete IRS, failures, remote instructor panel, 5 independent lighting rheostats, crew voice packs, etc... The Leonardo just recently got a 3D VC update that is very taxing to my 4GHz system because virtually every knob, dial and button in the 2D is also implemented in 3D, and works the same, which has the polygon count rocket up and the FPS down the drain as well. Of course, you don't have to use the VC.The Leonardo MD as it is implements one of the most complex system simulations of any FSX plane in my hangar, at least equal to, perhaps even more detailed than the PMDG MD-11 as far as systems go because there is less automation in the MD-80, and that's accurately reproduced. It is not the sort of plane you get into and auto-start engines and get on your way in five minutes. I remember it took me 2 hours to get to engine start, after reading the manual, and even then my first attempt resulted in an engine fire because I didn't read quite enough of the manual. The learning curve is steep, and there's quite a bit to do.An updated release of the Maddog is also due out shortly, so you may want to wait until then.The exterior model is perhaps not as modern without flex wings or bump mapping, hopefully something the new version will address.Etienne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are the FSX FPS compared to the CoolSky version? I own the CS version (the original and Pro) and the LH MD80 looks like it might be worth buying!
I guess that depends upon your system really, Mathew, and how your system is setup, so it's pretty subjective. You can see what mine is, from the sig below, and you can look at my issues/comments/helping posts on the CoolSky forum. My "tester route" is KSEA - KPDX, and I get smoother frames with FSX SP1 than with SP2, locked or unlimited. Now that Active Sky Advanced is out I'm using that, as it is easier on the frames than was it predecessor, ASX; and I have to say - the skies and sunsets are something to behold - but that beauty comes with a price when it's really heavy weather - when flying either aircraft. I also fly only VC, with the occasional 2D screen. You can configure the VC graphics for varying degrees of performance/quality with the LH model. That said - overflying Los Angeles with ASA and XPax running, I'm pulling between 16 and 25 locked at a 25. Elsewhere is generally 20 - 25 - which is very adequate with FSX - full autogen - no cars, 30% airline. Here's another setup screen, to give you some idea of complexity.Hope this is useful.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw in my opinion for what it's worth. I used to take turns flying the PMDG 737, Level-D 767 and the Wilco 737 with an occasional Cessna flight in there from time to time. Since I've purchased the LHS Maddog, I don't fly anything else now. It's not that the others aren't good, it's because the challenge and reward are so high in the Maddog. You start off making a lot of mistakes, but you learn from your errors and experience a great reward for your patience and study. You must learn the systems and follow a checklist to be successful. After awhile it's not so difficult anymore, and you realize that you're more educated and involved in flying than you were before. So if you're the type of person that likes challenges, then the reward of learning the LHS Maddog I believe brings the greatest satisfaction.Curt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that depends upon your system really, Mathew, and how your system is setup, so it's pretty subjective.
It doesn't need to be subjective. There is a way of getting a standardised measurement that's relatively independent of individual systems. If you have both the Coolsky and Leonardo, get them set up in the same situation, at the end of a runway, avionics and engines running, no traffic and static weather, and see what their average FPS is after five minutes. Tell us the figures for each, and we can feed them into the 'Petraeus Scale' that's being developed here http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239078. Alternatively, if you no longer have the Coolsky, do a comparison with the stock Microsoft CRJ700.That way, other people can see how the Leonardo performs, relative to other planes they are familiar with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very many thanks to you all. As ever, i'm bowled over by the amount of detailed info given here.Oh dear..... Touble is, i'm still not able to make a decision :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't need to be subjective. There is a way of getting a standardised measurement that's relatively independent of individual systems. If you have both the Coolsky and Leonardo, get them set up in the same situation, at the end of a runway, avionics and engines running, no traffic and static weather, and see what their average FPS is after five minutes. Tell us the figures for each, and we can feed them into the 'Petraeus Scale' that's being developed here http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239078. Alternatively, if you no longer have the Coolsky, do a comparison with the stock Microsoft CRJ700.That way, other people can see how the Leonardo performs, relative to other planes they are familiar with.
OK, Petraeus - I'll do it later on today. I have no intention of getting rid of the CoolSky version! It's still a great aircraft. (I still have the old CaptainSim 727 around somehere, too! :( ) Bare in mind my CoolSky is not the Pro version whereas the LSH is, so it will be heavier. That was a pretty good post you did the other day. I was looking for the MD. Thanks for your post, too, Curt: it echoes my sentiments pretty much. I think the LH is quite a bit more complex than the CoolSky, and when a planned flight, combined with FSBuild, ASA and XPax, moving jetways and some airline traffic is successful - it become quite an experience, doesn't it! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very many thanks to you all. As ever, i'm bowled over by the amount of detailed info given here.Oh dear..... Touble is, i'm still not able to make a decision :(
Looks like your box can handle either aircraft, Phil.. Get 'em both! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it possible to try the Coolsky model without buying it - isn't in the Flight1 wrapper system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it possible to try the Coolsky model without buying it - isn't in the Flight1 wrapper system?
Yes, you do have to buy it first, but Flight1's policy is one of "no questions asked returns". If you don't like your download after you've tried it, or it doesn't show the expected performance, etc., you can open a ticket with Flight1 and request that your money be refunded - for whatever reason. You then agree to completely delete all components of the purchased download - do it, and then say you've done it by acknowledging this fact on their form, and then the refund will be processed. I guess if you do it too many times you might be cut off at some point, but I think most folks are honest and don't abuse the system. It's win-win for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't need to be subjective. There is a way of getting a standardised measurement that's relatively independent of individual systems. If you have both the Coolsky and Leonardo, get them set up in the same situation, at the end of a runway, avionics and engines running, no traffic and static weather, and see what their average FPS is after five minutes. Tell us the figures for each, and we can feed them into the 'Petraeus Scale' that's being developed here http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239078. Alternatively, if you no longer have the Coolsky, do a comparison with the stock Microsoft CRJ700.That way, other people can see how the Leonardo performs, relative to other planes they are familiar with.
It's still somewhat subjective, because everyone's setup is not the same and different people look for different things when comparing their FSX to someone else's FSX. Anyway - here's my figures, taken at Boeing Field, Seattle, at 3840 x 1024, with frames locked at 40.Original CS Super80 .........VC....35.6 - 37~ ....2D....26-28LH Maddog 2008 Pro ........VC....21.7 - 23 ......2D....18-19.6Stock 747 ........................VC....36~ .............2D.....32~Same scenario, but 1280 x 1024Original CS Super80........VC....33 - 39 (wide?)LH Maddog 2008 Pro.......VC....26 - 28Eaglesoft Citation II.........VC....30 - 33Dornier Do27..................VC....25MAAM B25 ....................VC....33 - 35SAAB Safir ....................VC....33 - 35RA Spit 14 .....................VC....39It varies with individual aircraft; how they are configured, and how the system is setup; but look at that Dornier :( . That was a suprise. Was also surprised that there wasn't much change after switching from 3840 x 1024 down to 1280 x 1024. Not overly surprised that the LSH Maddog is heavier on frames than my older CoolSky version: it simply is a much more complex aircraft. You have only to read the website blurb to realize this.It comes down to this: I joined the Air Scouts in '56, then the Air Training Corp - then the RAF for six years. I obtained my British civil aviation avionics engineering license in 1967 and worked airlines for another ten years. Now I'm an IT guy. (Some of this is about reliving one's past).I like to see aircraft on the pan and at the gates: I like haze (ASA) - it's realistic; I like the sounds of passengers loading (XPax); baggage; flight attendants announcements. I like the complexity and challenge of doing it the book way, and in a professional manner; with a proper flight plan (FSBuild); SIDS/STARS and weather; f/o calls; VOX atc... My next purchase will be Radar Contact 4, probably. I'm not keen on the modern, wide-bodied aircraft or long flights, and the MD80 fills this "old-timers" bill very nicely. I would really love to see Dreamfleet release their Boeing 727 for FSX. This would be icing on the cake! Right now, for me, the LSH model is functionally and technically more correct than the CoolSky version: my machine takes care of the frame hit. Anyone with a better machine won't even notice the difference.And please take those figures as a very rough guideline - recognizing that many more expert than I in this hobby regard fps as not very informative - for me certainly 18 fps over Seattle or San Diego is perfectly smooth in any of the above aircraft on my machine (no - it doesn't dip that low, but I can drag it down with more "accessories" (like 50% cars)), but also recognize my processor is now 2-1/2 years old, and with only two meg of ram, running XP SP2. :( Hope this helps. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The price for the LHD MD-80 includes both the FSX and FS9 version, which seems like really a good deal for such a complex add-on. Imagine getting the PMDG MD-11 FSX and F9 version for the price of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hope this helps. :(
Thanks, Paul, it certainly does. And I'll work these figures into an updated version of the 'Petraeus Scale' some time around the weekend.And I'm sure you'll prefer RCV4 to VoxATC, unless you absolutely have to have voice response. I never could get used to Vox's wacky altitudes - 'climb to Flight Level 133' and so on. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, Paul, it certainly does. And I'll work these figures into an updated version of the 'Petraeus Scale' some time around the weekend.And I'm sure you'll prefer RCV4 to VoxATC, unless you absolutely have to have voice response. I never could get used to Vox's wacky altitudes - 'climb to Flight Level 133' and so on. :(
Yeah... my dogs both give me such strange looks when I use it.... :( my wife, too.... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would really love to see Dreamfleet release their Boeing 727 for FSX. This would be icing on the cake!
I would like to see some of these classics too! The 727, 707, maybe a DC8. Old school variants, no FMS or EFIS, just pure analog. I imagine the VC could be very high quality and still be high FPS since I guess the systems are "easier" to model and less FPS taxing. The CLS 747-200/300 was a good start, but still a little hard on FPS. How did PMDG do such as amazing job with the MD11X and get great FPS? I hope other devs learn/implement similar techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only have experience with the Leonardo MD83 so I'll speak to that: I find it is an incredibly in depth systems simulation, with features like a weather radar, complete IRS, failures, remote instructor panel, 5 independent lighting rheostats, crew voice packs, etc... The Leonardo just recently got a 3D VC update that is very taxing to my 4GHz system because virtually every knob, dial and button in the 2D is also implemented in 3D, and works the same, which has the polygon count rocket up and the FPS down the drain as well. Of course, you don't have to use the VC.The Leonardo MD as it is implements one of the most complex system simulations of any FSX plane in my hangar, at least equal to, perhaps even more detailed than the PMDG MD-11 as far as systems go because there is less automation in the MD-80, and that's accurately reproduced. It is not the sort of plane you get into and auto-start engines and get on your way in five minutes. I remember it took me 2 hours to get to engine start, after reading the manual, and even then my first attempt resulted in an engine fire because I didn't read quite enough of the manual. The learning curve is steep, and there's quite a bit to do.An updated release of the Maddog is also due out shortly, so you may want to wait until then.The exterior model is perhaps not as modern without flex wings or bump mapping, hopefully something the new version will address.Etienne
Good thread- I own the CoolSky MD80, both the steam and the Pro glass models, and also have the original version of the Leonardo bird with just the 2D panel. Is it possible for someone to post a pic of the Leonardo VC? Thanks, Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall view... FSX3181312569_ed35084860_b.jpgILS 09 KORD... FSX3181313207_0bbb140f24_b.jpgLFRD, Blue Panel... FS93182145084_8b02705236_b.jpgIf you want more... Just say so. :( PS : I bought the CS MD... Never ever flew it again after flying the LSH... I prefer system depth over beautiful models and liveries. :(And don't forget that with the LSH MD, you get an incredible deep (again system wise) add-on for both FSX and FS9...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thread- I own the CoolSky MD80, both the steam and the Pro glass models, and also have the original version of the Leonardo bird with just the 2D panel. Is it possible for someone to post a pic of the Leonardo VC? Thanks, Bruce.
Here ya go, Bruce!http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/pj_...reenShot053.jpghttp://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/pj_...reenShot033.jpghttp://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/pj_...reenShot032.jpghttp://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/pj_...reenShot030.jpgRegards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the FMS database on the Maddog be updated to current AIRAC cycles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites