MD-80 recommendations please

[ahinterl 1]

I own the Leonardo Maddog in all its variations (2008 Standard and Pro), but never used it much in FS9, now in FSX, I haven't it even installed.I'm currently heavily engaged in learning the PMDG MD-11, but was recently infected with the "Tengucigalpa approach virus" and therefore need a much smaller plane to fly there.Until the last quirks in Digital Aviation's Fokker are ironed out with the overdue SP2 and PMDG releases the NGX, I thought an MD-80 would do as well, as there are two remarkable simulations of this plane, namely the Leonardo Maddog, which I have, and the competitor's product, the Coolsky/Flight1 Super80 Pro (I cannot think of another FSX plane of adequate size with the same level of simulated systems at the moment).Before I install my Maddog, I'd like to hear from others who happen to own both MD-80s if I'd rather switch to Flight1's plane or not.I know, both products are slightly different since they model different MD-80 series planes, but I'm mostly interested in having the least amount of nasty bugs and quirks and like to have working systems as well as good hand flying characteristics (and maybe low FPS hits).Any comments are welcome.Andreas

[Guest hmstiger]

I own the Leonardo Maddog in all its variations (2008 Standard and Pro), but never used it much in FS9, now in FSX, I haven't it even installed.I'm currently heavily engaged in learning the PMDG MD-11, but was recently infected with the "Tengucigalpa approach virus" and therefore need a much smaller plane to fly there.Until the last quirks in Digital Aviation's Fokker are ironed out with the overdue SP2 and PMDG releases the NGX, I thought an MD-80 would do as well, as there are two remarkable simulations of this plane, namely the Leonardo Maddog, which I have, and the competitor's product, the Coolsky/Flight1 Super80 Pro (I cannot think of another FSX plane of adequate size with the same level of simulated systems at the moment).Before I install my Maddog, I'd like to hear from others who happen to own both MD-80s if I'd rather switch to Flight1's plane or not.I know, both products are slightly different since they model different MD-80 series planes, but I'm mostly interested in having the least amount of nasty bugs and quirks and like to have working systems as well as good hand flying characteristics (and maybe low FPS hits).Any comments are welcome.Andreas

The Maddog is an excellent add-on. I don't have the Coolsky/Flight1 package so I can't comment beyond that the review at AVSIM noted that the systems simulation is deeper for the Maddog product. The new VC is good - the plane flies like a dream - I think its the best hand flyer in my stable. You will have a great time learning its quirks and systems. It is not the easiest plane to master. But it is a ton of fun. Colin Ware

[Guest Mendota]

I have had one or another version of Maddog since the start, and I recommend it. There should be a user review of mine on the previous iteration, which is similar.

[jwenham 1]

I have the Coolsky MD-80 classic version and am very happy with it. The FPS are great and very smooth. The support is very good as well. I will eventually get the Pro version which has a FMC but I am still busy mastering the LevelD 767 and will wait till I am good at flying that. (Almost there)

[Gumps 0]

AndreasI have the CoolSky Super80 Pro and am very pleased with the package. I fly the MD-11X and the Super80 most often out of quite a few addon aircraft in my hangar. Both are very indepth simulations, and both are very framerate friendly on my equipment. If an airplane is a FPS pig, it kind of ruins it for me, no matter how fancy the flight deck features.The Super80 in particular offers a large number of undockable panels and popups that are particularly useful when using mulitiple monitors. The flight deck sounds are very immersive. The flight crew workload is noticeably higher than the MD-11, as it should be. There's also a good built in training system and good manuals. Overall, top notch product.Noel WBrisbane

[kiwikat 506]

I would say get the super 80 pro. I recently purchased it. It is muuuuuuuch more stable than it was right after release. The VC does look like something from FS9, but it works nicely.The maddog2008 may look better but it IS something from FS9. It is not a true FSX plane and impacts your FPS as a result. The Avsim review said originally they got 9 FPS before turning their settings way down. 9 FPS isn't flyable.Always go with native FSX. The Super 80 Pro has matured nicely. :(

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

I was/am a beta tester for the Leonardo Maddog series of products, so keep that in mind as you read my comments.The framerates of the Coolsky MD-80 Pro are very good...it has very little impact on my P4 system. The training and tutorials included with the Coolsky airplane are very cool. Fully integrated checklists, and even interactive tutorials right in the cockpit are included. This will really help you familiarize yourself with the airplane.On the other hand, the cockpit graphics are rather "cartoonish" and don't really have the correct "look and feel". The panel sacrifices accuracy for ease of use by taking liberties with the size and placement of the instruments and controls. The systems depth is significantly less detailed than the LSH Maddog, and the FMS in particular is less detailed. If you've never flown the LSH Maddog, you probably won't know what you're missing, and given the great performance of the Coolsky jet, you'd probably be satisfied with your purchase.All of that being said, if you want the ultimate MD-80 simulation with a vast array of very detailed features, the LSH Maddog Pro is the way to go. It includes accurate simulations of the Windshear Guidance System, EGPWS with full terrain display, Wx radar, ART, ATR, and MANY others. The depth of the systems modeling is easily on par with any of the modern PMDG jets (747, MD-11). There is an advanced system failure generator with literally hundreds of failures, and even the ability to "defer" items prior to flight. Little "DMI" stickers even appear next to the inoperative equipment, and sometimes you even have to pull circuit breakers.Again, the LSH Maddog Pro systems depth is second to none.It's not without its problems however. At times the activation process can be slow, and that has ruffled some feathers in the past. The activation process was recently automated however, and to the best of my knowledge it's MUCH better now. It's also true that there is a frame rate hit, though to be perfectly honest, even on my old P4 3GHz system, I still get 15-20 FPS in general. The fps impact certainly isn't a deal breaker.Besides that, I still have a few issues that relate specifically to sound in FSX, but I have similar issues with the PMDG MD-11, so it's more likely an FSX limitation or issue.Anyway, in my opinion, the Maddog Pro is a significantly more realistic and thorough product. Regards,Nick

[kiwikat 506]

If the maddog 2008 were a true FSX model, I would have bought it. Companies who don't produce native FSX models for whatever reason ARE losing customers because of it.

[Guest hmstiger]

If the maddog 2008 were a true FSX model, I would have bought it. Companies who don't produce native FSX models for whatever reason ARE losing customers because of it.

the Maddog plane works just fine in FSX.

[Guest Mendota]

If the maddog 2008 were a true FSX model, I would have bought it. Companies who don't produce native FSX models for whatever reason ARE losing customers because of it.

I am getting the impression you don't approve of non-native FSX airplanes in FSX at all :-)Fair enough. But I respectfully submit that the loss of FPS between the two is nothing that cannot be practically compensated for by moderate changes to sliders, and the difference between 20 fps and 36 fps isn't enough to bother me. In a perfect world, sure, let's all fly native FSX products. But there are many other factors to consider in purchasing, and companies who are selling ports today are hopefully working on native products for tomorrow and need support in the meantime.So if native FSX is your only criterion, then by all means go with CoolSky. If you're interested in other factors as well, take a look at the Maddog. I'm not willing to put flying airplanes I enjoy on hold while making long runs on the MD-11 just because it is native (not that it isn't a great airplane).I've heard good things about both of them. I like my Maddog, however, and I'll admit that some of that may be nostalgia, but it is a solid, deep product.

[ahuimanu 50]

I have both, and I recognize and respect the higher fidelity of the Leonardo version, but I willy fly the Coolsky version much more often. Performance matters and the difference in fidelity is not enough of an incentive to deal with the performance hit of the Leonardo version. Espen at Coolsky is dedicated to the product and contineus to improve it, so I remain satisfied.

[kiwikat 506]

I am getting the impression you don't approve of non-native FSX airplanes in FSX at all :-)Fair enough. But I respectfully submit that the loss of FPS between the two is nothing that cannot be practically compensated for by moderate changes to sliders, and the difference between 20 fps and 36 fps isn't enough to bother me. In a perfect world, sure, let's all fly native FSX products. But there are many other factors to consider in purchasing, and companies who are selling ports today are hopefully working on native products for tomorrow and need support in the meantime.So if native FSX is your only criterion, then by all means go with CoolSky. If you're interested in other factors as well, take a look at the Maddog. I'm not willing to put flying airplanes I enjoy on hold while making long runs on the MD-11 just because it is native (not that it isn't a great airplane).I've heard good things about both of them. I like my Maddog, however, and I'll admit that some of that may be nostalgia, but it is a solid, deep product.

Where'd you get that impression from :( :( Yes, hopefully companies who sell ports today are working on FSX aircraft. However, that is not the case with most of the remaining companies. I posted on the maddog forums and there wasn't any interest in making a real FSX version. Most other companies still doing portovers don't have any interest either.20 FPS isn't good enough for me. With 20 FPS, track IR isn't as smooth, nor is the scenery. The FSX experience just isn't the same. If I have to turn down my settings to utilize an aircraft, I'd rather fly it in FS9 where it is supposed to be.Payware developers were making true FSX aircraft within a couple months of its release. There's no excuse anymore after 2 years. I'll continue to vote with my wallet by not purchasing any portovers.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Payware developers were making true FSX aircraft within a couple months of its release. There's no excuse anymore after 2 years. I'll continue to vote with my wallet by not purchasing any portovers.

Have you ever actually flown the Leonardo Maddog Pro? Like I said in my earlier post, if you've never flown it, then you don't know what you're missing. The difference in system fidelity between the two products is substantial. If higher fps is more important than accurately modeled systems, then yes, the Coolsky jet is the right choice for you.But if you want the most accurate MD-80 simulator, with only a modest frame rate hit, that title belongs to the Leonardo Maddog. Hands down. And 20 fps in FSX on a 6.5 year old system isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination.