Duke out now

[robert young]

I'd just like to add that I also really would like to see default autopilot keyboard commands implementing in any update to the Duke, I'm really surprised you didn't include basic keyboard control for things like HDG, VS and ALT as it makes my hardware pretty much useless with the duke. Hot spots with mouse wheel interfacing would solve the problem completely as we could then use FSUIPC mouse macros.One other thing I could never understand with the mouse click and drag interface is why have you always choosen to use vertical dragging? Horizontal dragging would make more sense as you have less chance of running out of dragging area too early, especially where the heading bug is concerned, as turning the dial to the left is a pain in the butt because you always hit the base of the screen area before you get the heading you want, or at least that is usually the case for me.So please please please can we have basic SDK compliance for auto pilot/gauge control. In all other respects the Duke is yet another true masterpiece, I especially love the panel/gauge back lighting it even looks stunning in the daytime and it makes needing the dome light on in the day a thing of the past even though you still include one if you want it. Thanks for reading.

Hi Andy,The click drag feature is in fact one of our most popular innovations. Most users (who do not have exotic hardware) are fed up with the tiny click spots in default and other aircraft where you have to hover somewhere around the approximate area and hope that a tooltip might appear to confirm you are within the tiny area. In stark contrast, with our method you simply place the mouse arrow over the control/knob and it instantly responds. But I hear you: you are campaigning for horizontal, not vertical motion. Well, we listened, but most of the complaints before were that the dragging function ran out of screen space too quickly. We have addressed this in the Duke and this is also described in the Flying Guide. Now, the further you drag, and the quicker you drag, the quicker the bug moves. In testing, we almost never ran out of vertical space.So the remaining question is: should you drag vertically or horizontally, or perhaps both according to the function. Personally, I like dragging vertically but we will always listen if the consensus is that horizontal is best. Many current monitors are widescreen but there are still a lot of screens out there which are not.Time and time again, these forums are somewhat distorted in the impression they give. Many posts here are submitted by what I suppose one can call "power users". They often demand, or assume, that everything we develop is going to be fully compatible with other software or hardware which themselves might be considered lacking in their adaptability. In this industry nothing can stay still. People rightly want progress. But one developer's innovations often mean other good and solid innovations might need updating also. We do not want to go back to absurdly small click spots. But should we hold back our own progress because a small number of users have hardware which responds only to a flawed system in the first place? It is difficult to judge. If you do not own a Goflight module, the Duke is probably completely trouble free. Now, who is at fault here? Goflight for calibrating their hardware based on clearly inadequate click spots, or are we culpable because we have made the decision to throw out the default clickspot weaknesses and go our own way? It is a very difficult balance. Maybe we should contact Go-flight and ask them if they can adapt their hardware to our software. That might seem cheeky, but we are all in a world where we are trying our best to improve what we see as glaring weaknesses in default functions. It so happens that in doing so we are making life difficult for those who rely on other hardware or software which is itself based on a flawed core system. In this chaotic way, everyone is jockeying for position, not to gain advantage as such, but to express their own view about what is best.SDK compliance by the way does not mean you repeat the flaws in default aircraft or panel functions. Compliance means you do not divert from core development protocols which result in a computer crash or basic incompatibility. If compliance means never deviating from the default aircraft our aircraft would never spin, never sideslip and we'd still be looking at gauges which updated at 18 frames per second. And this is where I would like to raise the subject of balance. There must be over fifty innovations in the Duke which were painstakingly and lovingly arrived at, but I don't see you noticing them much! Because of one or two relatively minor annoyances, based on a user's own personal set up, personal hardware and personal preferences, it is quite possible to post here and give the impression that the entire aircraft is a disaster, whereas in truth, it functions perfectly well for 99% of users!So in conclusion, I hear you, and in an ideal world everyone's addon on top of another addon which changes yet another addon which finally alters the way iFSX works would be better if all of them worked together in total harmony. But with the Duke one thing is certain. Sorry to repeat but it will work with a standard copy of FSX (preferably with SP2) and it tries quite hard to adapt to other third party stuff as well. We are already in deep discussions about making our panel compatible with the popular RXP gauges, but there is a limit to how far we go to accomodate not just these but a vast amount of other stuff which makes a small headache a very large one! Is it really such a pain to use a mouse occasionally?To give you one last example, a customer some time back e-mailed us complaining his landing lights didn't work. He INSISTED that all other aircraft had perfect landing lights but ours had the wrong beam at the wrong angle. We repeatedly asked this customer what other addons he possessed. In the end we established that he had purchased another aircraft, which, unbelievably, altered the entire contents of his aircraft folder's fx files which resulted in lights according to its own specifications, and not at all based on the core lighting in FSX. What can we do to fight this? Almost nothing except to say that our aircraft WILL work with a standard copy of FSX (oh dear I repeated again!), and we additionally do our best to accomodate popular addons, be it hardware or sofware. But being of limited budget, we simply cannot go out and buy then test every single hardware extra out there. Firstly it would bankrupt us and secondly we would never get any work done and people already were complaining the Duke would never appear.But, again, I do hear you and I send my Best Wishes,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[LAdamson]

Sorry to repeat but it will work with a standard copy of FSX

I verify that it does! I'm not talented enough to have SP1/2....L.Adamson

[pontiuspilotus]

Well said, Rob. Can I just add that I do like vertical dragging, precisely because it's difficult to run out of screen space. The problem with using the mouse wheel is that one would probably loose the ability to manipulate 1000s and 100s separately, using the left and right buttons.Being able to ARM the KAP autopilot is always good, unlike some standard implementations in other payware. This has always been available in all the Real Air offerings. The subtle gauge lighting was a pleasant surprise to me, well done there!And yes, it works in Acceleration too.

[Guest John_Cillis]

I verify that it does! I'm not talented enough to have SP1/2....L.Adamson

I also wanted to add I have SP 1 installed, and the Duke is perfect. It's my second payware purchase for FS-X (with the Carenado 172 being my first) and I am fortunate both purchases run well. I tried SP 2, but with Tileproxy some of the default airport and ground scenery buildings will disappear if you change your viewing angle or POV. SP1 has been fantastic.-John

[Andydigital]

I think you are taking things a little to much to heart here Rob, I said quite clearly that I was very happy with the Duke other than that I could not use keyboard short cuts to activate or change very basic auto pilot systems or use hot spots. Even having hot spots hidden on the 2d panel instruction card page would be good enough and these wouldn't interfere with your click and drag interface which is excellent I agree for people without dedicated hardware. And on the vertical verses horizontal thing, even a 4:3 screen is still wider than it is tall. By the way I have purchased every FSX plane you have released so far and I love them all and I have no problems using the VRi MCP with those with FSUIPC and mouse macros if need be, its possible because I can use default MSFS keyboard commands to arm/activate AP modes and increase or decrease bug settings etc, this isn't so with the Duke and I dont understand why this basic facility wasn't provided. You may actually remember me too as I made you a blended flatten for the airfield that you included with the FSX version of the Spit so that the airfield blended smoothly into the Horizon VFR GenX photo scenery.I don't use Go-flight stuff as its still too expensive for me, I'm using a VRinsight MCP combo which is far cheaper and includes EFIS, MCP and COM panel all for far less than what you would pay for just the Go-Flight MCP. I can see these becoming very popular in the future just because of how good value for money they really are.Please do not think for one minute that I am bashing your Duke I can see how much time and dedication has gone into making it, it's very obvious to see and it is truly appreciated.

[robert young]

I think you are taking things a little to much to heart here Rob, I said quite clearly that I was very happy with the Duke other than that I could not use keyboard short cuts to activate or change very basic auto pilot systems or use hot spots. Even having hot spots hidden on the 2d panel instruction card page would be good enough and these wouldn't interfere with your click and drag interface which is excellent I agree for people without dedicated hardware. And on the vertical verses horizontal thing, even a 4:3 screen is still wider than it is tall. By the way I have purchased every FSX plane you have released so far and I love them all and I have no problems using the VRi MCP with those with FSUIPC and mouse macros if need be, its possible because I can use default MSFS keyboard commands to arm/activate AP modes and increase or decrease bug settings etc, this isn't so with the Duke and I dont understand why this basic facility wasn't provided. You may actually remember me too as I made you a blended flatten for the airfield that you included with the FSX version of the Spit so that the airfield blended smoothly into the Horizon VFR GenX photo scenery.I don't use Go-flight stuff as its still too expensive for me, I'm using a VRinsight MCP combo which is far cheaper and includes EFIS, MCP and COM panel all for far less than what you would pay for just the Go-Flight MCP. I can see these becoming very popular in the future just because of how good value for money they really are.Please do not think for one minute that I am bashing your Duke I can see how much time and dedication has gone into making it, it's very obvious to see and it is truly appreciated.

Hi Andy,All points taken. I appreciate your goodwill and I must confess I didn't match your forum presence with the favour you generously donated, so thanks for that. The good thing is that some customers are now giving us some very useful data to help us design a couple of patches to assist in functions of a number of third party adddons, and if possible this will address your needs too, though at this stage it is not possible to guarantee. We might well have missed a couple of functions and we have traced it to another issue we were trying to solve, and it solved that issue but appears to have scupperd other basic functions, so there was never an intention to make things awkward. Sean has already identified this and it will be addressed. With less than 24 hours since release I hope that is a timely reponse.All the best,Rob Young

[Guest ArtieLange]

We are already in deep discussions about making our panel compatible with the popular RXP gauges, but there is a limit to how far we go to accomodate not just these but a vast amount of other stuff which makes a small headache a very large one! Is it really such a pain to use a mouse occasionally?

I don't care about the RXP T or N gauges, yours are very good and don't need replacing, but the GPS is a different story. The problem with the RXP 530 is you need a place in the VC for it since the model file can't be edited. I don't even bother to buy planes if there is no spot in the VC panel for it, or a gauge of similar size ( the 2 430's in the Eaglesoft Cirrus for example ) that can be swaped out for the 530.

[Geofa]

Rob-Congratulations on another magnificent airplane-this one will be my favorite.Re: hardware-I have an Elite Avionics Panel 2000 and all functions work great with the Duke (as well as your other products)-altimeter,vor,coms/nav/transponder,gps .However-the hsi does not work at all-either the heading bug or the course selector. Seems odd that only this instrument would not work.Also-my goflight trim/gear/flaps module works great.I eagerly await using the reality xp gps.Also-great work on the single engine stuff. Just curious though-once the prop is feathered-I can't unfeather it (at least there is no animation that shows this) . Does this model not have accumulators?

[zfehr]

Rob-Congratulations on another magnificent airplane-this one will be my favorite.Re: hardware-I have an Elite Avionics Panel 2000 and all functions work great with the Duke (as well as your other products)-altimeter,vor,coms/nav/transponder,gps .However-the hsi does not work at all-either the heading bug or the course selector. Seems odd that only this instrument would not work.Also-my goflight trim/gear/flaps module works great.I eagerly await using the reality xp gps.Also-great work on the single engine stuff. Just curious though-once the prop is feathered-I can't unfeather it (at least there is no animation that shows this) . Does this model not have accumulators?

Hi Geof,Glad you were finally able to get this one. Interesting that the Elit AP2000 tunes the nav/com frequencies. My PFC avionics panel has the LEDs and they show the frequencies correctly but when you tune the on screen radios don't change standby. When I press the swap button they do change to the correctly tuned frequency on the PFC units. It's not really a big deal but wonder what Elite programmed differently than PFC. I get the same HSI problem and hope this is rectified.

[Geofa]

Hi Geof,Glad you were finally able to get this one. Interesting that the Elit AP2000 tunes the nav/com frequencies. My PFC avionics panel has the LEDs and they show the frequencies correctly but when you tune the on screen radios don't change standby. When I press the swap button they do change to the correctly tuned frequency on the PFC units. It's not really a big deal but wonder what Elite programmed differently than PFC. I get the same HSI problem and hope this is rectified.

Does the PFC use fsuipc like the elite?

[zfehr]

Does the PFC use fsuipc like the elite?

Yes and no... PFC has an individual module also written by Pete Dowson and also uses FSUIPC. I have been able to use the PFC module for some custom button assignments and can also use FSUIPC to for instance program all the GPS buttons which on the PFC are modeled after a Trimble unit not used in MSFS. I have a new plate coming from PFC that will have the buttons and knobs for the Garmin GNS units of RXP. I don't really want to mess with the radio tuning assignments since they are designed to work with the LED readouts on the physical equipment and work with all the other default aircraft and add-ons I have. If the heading bug, course and autopilot get sorted out in the Duke I'll have very good functionality and not have to touch the mouse.

[robert young]

I went for my first flight yesterday. As most RAS aircraft it is very,very good. However, I find the camera views switched by the standard FS keys to be annoyig and disruptive. Cycling through the various views to get to where you want to be could usefully be backed up by having hot click spots on the panel to go direct to the appropriate camera view.

Hi John,We did consider makiing click hot spots by default, but decided to leave it to the user to choose. You can assign a hot key click to any view simply by opening the aircraft cfg (after making a safety copy!) and insert the line in any camera section:HotKeySelect=and then choosing a number to assign to, but being careful not to repeat an already selected number from a different camera. The manual mentions that views can be user assigned and selected in a variety of ways, but the detail is already in both the FSX SDK and indeed is partly covered by the normal help files/learning center within FSX.Kind Regards,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[Sean Moloney]

Hi Guys,Thanks for all the kind comments!Just to reiterate what Rob has already said - we've taken all the feedback onboard and hopefully will be able to offer some solutions. It would be unwwise to promise anything at this stage, we need to look into the issues with a bit more depth first, but we're looking into the following:* Reality XP GNS 530/430 compatibility.* improved Go-Flight and other advanced hardware input device compatibility.* HSI HDG and CRS issues.All the best,Sean Moloney,RealAir Simulations

[Andydigital]

Thank you for the response Sean even without any concrete promises it is still very much appreciated.

[David Roch]

Hi Guys,Thanks for all the kind comments!Just to reiterate what Rob has already said - we've taken all the feedback onboard and hopefully will be able to offer some solutions. It would be unwwise to promise anything at this stage, we need to look into the issues with a bit more depth first, but we're looking into the following:* Reality XP GNS 530/430 compatibility.* improved Go-Flight and other advanced hardware input device compatibility.* HSI HDG and CRS issues.All the best,Sean Moloney,RealAir Simulations

Sean,If I might suggest a missing feature, I'd love to see DX10 interior self-shade (like Carenado or Captain Sim 100% Dx10 compatible aircrafts).It really adds a lot, immersion wise.