Which MD-80 to get....

[Paul J 349]

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.

[Paul J 349]

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. :(

[Clipper Ocean Spray 189]

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.

[Petraeus 147]

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. :(

[Paul J 349]

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.... :(

[MatthewS 761]

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.

[brucek 38]

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.

[Epikk 62]

Overall view... FSXILS 09 KORD... FSXLFRD, Blue Panel... FS9If 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...

[Paul J 349]

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,

[Guest SkullxBones]

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

[Paul J 349]

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

Yup. There`s a small amount of fiddling that needs to be done - a dedicated one is being implemented - but until that happens you just take the PMDG one and convert it.

[Guest SkullxBones]

How are you updating? Is their database compatible with any of the manufacturers listed at Navigraph?

[brucek 38]

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,

Thanks pj and Fritz, much appreciated. Looks good, I need to update my older 2D panel version.Thanks, Bruce.

[flyerkg 62]

Thanks pj and Fritz, much appreciated. Looks good, I need to update my older 2D panel version.Thanks, Bruce.

I just want to post a thank you to all who have provided detailed reviews and comments about these different Maddog simulations. I am quite convinced that the LH version is the way to go for what I desire to have in my FSX setup. I can't recall which version of MS Flight Simulator was marketed with "As Real As It Gets" on the box, but I might as well make my set up live up to this slogan. Like many out there, I do want systems intense addons with procedures and cause/effect for not following procedures. These reviews have certainly helped me. Keith

[Paul J 349]

How are you updating? Is their database compatible with any of the manufacturers listed at Navigraph?

In some degree, yes. The PMDG's Terminal Procedures - are what are needed, and the SID/STARS they contain must be converted for use by the Maddog. It's PMDG_Procedures_0813a.exe, and you can download this file from Guru Terry Yingling's site at http://planepath.com/html/pmdg.html. The conversion application comes from from post #58 here:- http://www.flythemaddog.com/forum/index.ph...amp;#entry27194 This file is by another Guru known as afentis on the site, and it's called: PMDG_maddog_v04.zip.You need to pay if you want the latest AIRAC from NavData, but you can get the last free NavData (806) from Avsim. The NavData files get downloaded into %fs_root%\FMCWP\NavData. There will be six files altogether. These can then be copied to your \Maddog\Routes folder.You then run the PMDG_Procedures .exe to create the \PMDG\SidStar folder and files, then run the conversion utility, naming the output location as your %fs_root%\Maddog\SidStars folder. When you launch the FMC it will reflect 806, and you will have all departure and arrival procedures you need. The Maddog forum above has much more information on this, with many posts from the experts: this is only my third or fourth week in handling an FMC. Everyone's instructions are quite ambiguous, and so I had to do a lot of digging, assuming and interpreting, and this AIRAC portion has been a learning experience from scratch, so I could unknowingly be doing or saying something wrong somewhere here, but in any case - I have managed to complete three successful KSFO - KSAN runs, one KSEA - KPDX and one KSEA - KSLC using the FMC without any problems, so I think it's ok. (If it's not I hope someone will correct me... :( )Regards,