Wellington Review

[WarHorse47 3]

I purchased the download FS9 version last February and really like the aircraft. The majority of comments made in the Avsim Review are accurate; however, I have noted some gauge, scenery and model issues and have reported them to First Class Simulations.Here are the gauge issues I reported:1. The large hand on the RPM gauge in the 2D panel is missing.2. The Artificial Horizon in the VC is reversed. The gauge indicates I'm descending when the plane actually is gaining altitude.3. The landing gear indicator in the VC does not function. There are no lights to indicate the status of the gear.4. The oil pressure gauge in the VC has a flashing texture. It flickers throughout the flight.5. The cockpit light switch in the VC is hidden. No switch is visible, just a hot spot for turning on/off.6. No VC cockpit light. The gauges light up well, but I had to add my own VC light to illuminate the panel and interior.Issues related to the models:7. Tail wheel does not retract. All Wellingtons except for the prototype had retractable tail wheels. Not a big deal as I know it would require a change to the various models.8. Landing lights point downward and not outward. Although I can turn the lights on, they do not illuminate the runway in front of the aircraft.And the issue with the scenery package:9. Static aircraft textures were missing with the FS9 install. (One of the designers helped me in locating the missing textures from the FSX folders, BTW).I should also mention that it has taken me several attempts to contact FCS Support. Several e-mails got lost, but I finally received a response on April 21st that my issues have been forwarded to the developer and a patch is in the works.Thanks--WH

[Petraeus 147]

Does this Wellington have FSX camera definitions for the various manned positions (bomb aimer, tail gunner, top gunner etc)? It seems such an obvious thing to do, yet these large WWII bomber products never seem to include them.

[WarHorse47 3]

Interesting. No more responses to the review. Looks like I need to plant some evidence. :( Take a close look at this screenshot from the review. It is really not from the VC, but actually from the 2D panel.Look closely at the artifical horizon. It indicates the aircraft is in a climb, when actually the aircraft is flying level.Now take a look at the RPM gauges. What is the RPM reading? There should be a large hand on the gauge. Can you see it? Of course not because it is missing in the 2D panel.No offense, but I think the review needs to be redone.--WH

[kevinh 409]

The artificial horizon indicates the nose is a few degrees up. That's not the same as indicating a climb. I'm not saying you're wrong, but then again you might not be right.What puts me off buying the FCS Wellington are the inaccurate external textures. FCS seem to have applied the wrong RAF markings in many cases. Basic errors you could accept with freeware, but not payware.Kevin

[Peter Clemenko 0]

Comment retracted...

[Chock 17,769]

I'd be wary of accusing FCS if I were you. It's true that there was indeed some spam mentioning an FCS product, but that does not mean that FCS itself was responsible for the spamming; it could equally be the case that an outside agency they were legitimately employing to promote their product was responsible for doing something of which they might not have approved.Even if they did approve such an action, it could still be the case that they were unaware the email addresses were gathered in an underhand way. For all we know, the email list may have been misrepresented to them with a claim that they were gathered in a totally legitimate way, which would make them the unwitting partners in a scam, and guilty of nothing at all.In short, all we know is that they were harvested and that FCS was the recipient of them, but that does not prove FCS were the instigators of such an action.Until you know for sure who did what, be careful who you accuse.Al

[Guest Binkles]

I'd be wary of accusing FCS if I were you. It's true that there was indeed some spam mentioning an FCS product, but that does not mean that FCS itself was responsible for the spamming; it could equally be the case that an outside agency they were legitimately employing to promote their product was responsible for doing something of which they might not have approved.Even if they did approve such an action, it could still be the case that they were unaware the email addresses were gathered in an underhand way. For all we know, the email list may have been misrepresented to them with a claim that they were gathered in a totally legitimate way, which would make them the unwitting partners in a scam, and guilty of nothing at all.In short, all we know is that they were harvested and that FCS was the recipient of them, but that does not prove FCS were the instigators of such an action.Until you know for sure who did what, be careful who you accuse.Al

I also haven't seen a statement from them saying sorry for the underhanded way their publicist sent a "spam" message (anything I don't opt in for), and that they will not be employing the services of the people who assured them that the email addresses were all opt in accounts.I certainly won't be purchasing from them, and it's not just them, but other companies that have done the same thing. At the end of the day, they've also done nothing to distance them from what was done either.

[Chock 17,769]

That's a fair point, and maybe they should make some sort of announcement if it was not their doing. But on the other hand, do you apologise for things you have not done?Al

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I also haven't seen a statement from them saying sorry for the underhanded way their publicist sent a "spam" message (anything I don't opt in for), and that they will not be employing the services of the people who assured them that the email addresses were all opt in accounts.I certainly won't be purchasing from them, and it's not just them, but other companies that have done the same thing. At the end of the day, they've also done nothing to distance them from what was done either.

I agree with this statement fully, I have also retracted my previous statement, as you have a good point chock. However FCS should look into this as it appears as if they did in fact get their e-mail sent out to people who only used their E-Mail that was used for AVSIM purposes.

That's a fair point, and maybe they should make some sort of announcement if it was not their doing. But on the other hand, do you apologise for things you have not done?Al

If it wasn't them, they should at least release a statement explaining what happened to their knowledge.

[Chock 17,769]

Yup it would seem a good idea if they are indeed blameless (they may not be for all I know, I'm simply giving them the benefit of the doubt until we know otherwise). Whatever the truth of the matter, if I had a business making FS add-ons, I'd want to put as much distance as I could between myself and the person who snaffled those emails.But onto the main point of the thread again, i.e. the Wellington. To decide not to purchase a product from a company because of something like the email issue, may actually be a little unfair to the developer of the product. Many companies who market FS add-ons are merely the entity which markets them, and nothing to do with the development process, which is often conducted on freelance type of arrangement. So one could needlessly tar the developer with the same brush in a completely undeserved fashion.I myself work as a freelancer much of the time, and if a company I do some work for turns out to be dodgy, I of course would not work for them again, but should I be castigated for having done so if I was unaware of such a reputation at the time I was working for them? This scenario by the way, is not hypothetical for me, I have had that happen, and it cost me a lot of money and some of my reputation, despite being totally blameless.Al

[pontiuspilotus 6]

I agree with this statement fully, I have also retracted my previous statement, as you have a good point chock. However FCS should look into this as it appears as if they did in fact get their e-mail sent out to people who only used their E-Mail that was used for AVSIM purposes.If it wasn't them, they should at least release a statement explaining what happened to their knowledge.

I thought this was discussed ad nauseam during the AVSIM hacking debacle. Contact Sales Ltd, First Class Simulations, Sourcewise Ltd, etc are all domains owned by the same person, a certain ex-AVSIM staff member (a simple Whois check will confirm this). From the website, the Wellington seems to be developed not by Abacus, Flight1, Shockwave, or any other third party developer. It is developed by FCS itself. And by his own admission that person did harvest Emails in order to send spam.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...49901&st=25

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I thought this was discussed ad nauseam during the AVSIM hacking debacle. Contact Sales Ltd, First Class Simulations, Sourcewise Ltd, etc are all domains owned by the same person, a certain ex-AVSIM staff member (a simple Whois check will confirm this). From the website, the Wellington seems to be developed not by Abacus, Flight1, Shockwave, or any other third party developer. It is developed by FCS itself. And by his own admission that person did harvest Emails in order to send spam.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...49901&st=25

Actually, I remember that convo. It all came back to that guy (he who must not be named).

[WarHorse47 3]

The artificial horizon indicates the nose is a few degrees up. That's not the same as indicating a climb. I'm not saying you're wrong, but then again you might not be right.What puts me off buying the FCS Wellington are the inaccurate external textures. FCS seem to have applied the wrong RAF markings in many cases. Basic errors you could accept with freeware, but not payware.Kevin

Trust me, the artifical horizon is off. This is based on several observations and tests in flight. When the plane goes in a dive, the horizion indicates a climb and just the opposite for a climb.Guess nobody has bought it, or noticed it. And I guess I'll have to fix it myself and I've never received a response from FCS.--WH

[Guest scrubcutter]

I can't say that I am altogether impressed with FCS Lancaster either. Given that they are a British comany, you would think they would take some pride in making such an iconic British aircraft their flagship. Instead we have a partially complete aircraft with similar issues to the Wellington, and a lack of support for customers. Even the recent patch to fix a multitude of problems with guages etc, it still hardly covers its shortfalls (half the problems it said it would fix it didn't...).Come on FCS, sort it out, or get relegated to the cheap seats along with some of the other shoddy software developers. The reason most people are MSFS 'pilots' is because they want as much system accuracy as possible. Developers such as A2A have set a very high benchmark for vintage aircraft sims, and an arcade experience is not what most customers want. Sadly, I wish it was A2A who had developed the Lanc (and the Wellington) complete with Accusim, as these are very rare aircraft, and only a priveleged few get to fly in the real thing. Apart from reasonable external (and internal, barring my comment on the tail fins below) graphics, the FCS Lanc is, well, frankly, pretty average. You can't even see the tail fins when you look around in the VC with Track IR! Even the old Shockwave WOP1 lanc had that modelled. If Avsim does a review, I would be horrified if this product gets any awards.