Eaglesoft Citation X Extreme V2.0 for FSX Released!

[Epikk 62]

Whatever man... I'm not saying it's not accurate... I'm just saying that I really don't like them... Again personal taste here. I'm not saying that the sim isn't good or anything like that.

[N400QW 205]

Ron,I don't follow the logic on 3D buttons/knobs for advanced users. Are you saying the limitation is to provide better frame rates for advanced FS enthusiasts? One would think that fully modeled 3D panels would increase the level of realism if frame rates weren't a factor.Bruce

Bruce, I simply mean that our primary focus on this project was to provide unsurpassed depth and realism to the systems and actual flight performance rather than emphasizing 3D switches. :(

Thanks for the quick answer... My favorite FS add-on is the Maddog 2008 Pro and I fly it daily. If you know this add-on well enough I think you would realize can I can "appreciate a certain level of realism and functionality" as you say... This is not the problem here. Just "personal graphic taste" : it looks really too old (early FS2004 kinda graphics at best) to me, especially in FSX (I except more) and compared to many other payware add-ons out there... By the way I bought it just after posting here... And I'm already asking for a refund thanks to the Flight 1 policy. So no harm done... :( Good luck with your Citation X guys... :(

Wow, didn't even delve into the systems before returning? Oh well, different strokes I guess. B) B)

[albix 1]

Two good reasons for not to buy this plane:1) No upgrade policy for previous customer that bought the 1.0 version of the Citation X2) For a very high price you can get either the FS9 or the FSX versionNoway!In the past I have purchased alot of addons for thousands of Euros but lately I have finally decided to be discriminating with those companies like Eaglesoft and Imagine Simulation that apply unfriendly and expensive policy to their products.Cheers.

[WarpD 824]

That's fine... it is your decision after all.However, our FS9 and FSX versions are not the same aircraft like other developer's aircraft that are offered as available for both at one price. That means it was two complete and separate development cycles from beginning to end to take advantage of what FSX offers in the modelling and gauges over FS9. If you really think you should be given two complete products for the price of one... well, good luck with that sir. :(As for upgrade from 1.0... once again, the 1.0 is a completely different product in absolutely every aspect from the 2.0. Why do you think you should get a completely different product at a discount?

[FlavioSSA 44]

I know it

[Guest Bob Keeshan]

Other than the updatable and realistic FMS, what elsed changed about the aircraft? Does it handle differently, have different functionality, etc. than v1.0? I understand it's a complete rebuild, but are the flight dynamics the same?I guess I'm wondering if I have v1.0 and don't need the FMS update, why should I buy v2.0? What am I missing?[edit]BTW, it looks good. I might pick it up for Christmas. I just want to know the "selling points" for upgrading from v1.0 to v2.0

[WarpD 824]

1 - Complete rewrite of the flight dynamics.2 - Complete rewrite of the engine performance.3 - Complete rewrite of the entire gauge set.4 - Functional FMS.5 - Fully variable lighting in 2D and VC.6 - Navigraph navigation data.7 - Accurately modeled split-bus electrical system.8 - Accurately modeled hydraulic system.9 - Accurately modeled CAWS messaging system.I could go on and on and on... but the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 is night and day.

[N400QW 205]

Two good reasons for not to buy this plane:1) No upgrade policy for previous customer that bought the 1.0 version of the Citation X2) For a very high price you can get either the FS9 or the FSX versionNoway!In the past I have purchased alot of addons for thousands of Euros but lately I have finally decided to be discriminating with those companies like Eaglesoft and Imagine Simulation that apply unfriendly and expensive policy to their products.Cheers.

Your notion of friendly and expensive differs greatly with any number of users and developers but your are entitled to your opinion.This is old ground so to speak but with the advent of FSX devs were required to build what we call FSX Certified and others call FSX "Native.There is no way that we will be building/rebuilding entire projects for FSX/SP2/DX10 Preview and all the goodies FSX offers and packaging as a "two for one price."Those are the realities these days. Some devs have dropped FS9 Development all together and we are considering the same.For now, there ain't no free lunch. :(

[Guest Bob Keeshan]

1 - Complete rewrite of the flight dynamics.2 - Complete rewrite of the engine performance.3 - Complete rewrite of the entire gauge set.4 - Functional FMS.5 - Fully variable lighting in 2D and VC.6 - Navigraph navigation data.7 - Accurately modeled split-bus electrical system.8 - Accurately modeled hydraulic system.9 - Accurately modeled CAWS messaging system.I could go on and on and on... but the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 is night and day.

Thanks for the info. From what I understood, though, v1.0's flight dynamics, engine performance, and gauges were accurately modeled and realistic too. Right?

[N400QW 205]

Thanks for the info. From what I understood, though, v1.0's flight dynamics, engine performance, and gauges were accurately modeled and realistic too. Right?

The originals were great Bob but we found much that could be improved so we did. Here's a partial quote from a Vatsim user who knows of what he speaks..."So far, smooth sailing on every flight I've done. The Eaglesoft FMS seems to be way more accurate than the competition. Both VNAV and LNAV are as precise as clockwork." :(

[jjjallen 37]

I'm personally pleased to hear that. 3D knobs in FSX are like Marmite; you either love em or hate him!

Marmite?? Personally I will buy this bird as I liked the 1.0 version so much. When will the F1 Mustang comparisons start? Art is Art!jja

[Guest Astradan]

Hello everyone,Firstly, I have no intention of raining on Ron and the ES team's parade but I would like to point out to fellow simmers who like to use keyboard assignments or hardware buttons and controllers to control essential AP functions like the Heading Knob, that sadly, NO standard FSX keyboard assignments work on this aircraft, other than the Course Knob.So if for example you assign the Heading Bug Inc and Heading Bug Dec controls in FSUIPC, they will not work in the aircraft and won't turn the Heading Knob. Similarly, standard FS assignments for HDG, ALT modes, etc, do not work in this otherwise fine aircraft.I did not expect the custom modes on this aircraft (like LNAV, VNAV and FLC) to be key assignable, as I know Eaglesoft haven't gone down this road in the past, however as a bare minimum I require even just the Heading Bug to be assignable to keys (and therefore my Go-Flight RP48) in aircraft that I fly.The vast majority of add-on aircraft released do have basic AP and Heading Bug, Course Bug controls mapped to standard key assignments; rare recent exceptions are Captain Sim 757 and 767 (who never map any key assignments and seem to believe that simmers only use a mouse) and very surprisingly (given their past strong record on key assignability of custom controls), the PMDG J41.I really, really hope and urge Eaglesoft to release an update that maps the Heading Bug in the CX 2.0 to the standard key assignment offsets in FSX.This is 2009 and lot's of us have moved on from being completely dependent on mouse clicks to control our aircraft.Here is my conversation with Ed on this; (only viewable for those registered at the Eaglesoft Forum).http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/forum/viewtopic...;p=10359#p10359Regards,

[Guest Astradan]

....just to add some other points, for others considering the purchase;-- Stunning engine sounds, really amazing. Some of the systems sounds in the cockpit are a bit crackly and lower rez however.- Flight Model is to die for. Really, really nice to hand fly.- FMC seems rock solid.- AP control seems good and LOC and GS behaviour again rock solid.- From a VC perspective, definately not up there with the state of the art in VC texturing. Some very rough areas (like the pillar to the left of teh Captain's position.- Although ES talk a lot about it being a fully customized FSX product, there don't appear to be any FSX camera views.... cycling the views, you could easily be in FS9!- When you loook at the 2D panels they are stunning, but the VC is not on a par in terms of texturing / rendering. I respectfully think ES need to move with time and get more into virtual cockpits, as I believe the fast majority of simmers use VCs (often with TrackIR) over 2D panels.- I use Registered FSUIPC and calibrated my (single axis) throttle but although the FADEC detents worked fine at first, I had 3 or 4 instances where something odd happened with them (moving my physical throttle only say 10% of travel was putting the CX's throttle into T/O detent)..... Needed to press the FADEC reset buttons each time - although it did solve the problem everytime. But wouldn't expect this problem as often. Dare I say, the feelThere CX, which also models the FADEC detents does not have this problem.- As I said in my post above - No ability to map even standard keyboard assignments for the AP, Heading Bug, etc (bizzarely except COURSE knob, the least used!) ....so expect to fiddle with your mouse to make all control movements. The CX 2.0 manual talk a lot about using FSUIPC Mouse Macros to map key commends, BUT, this only works with the 2D panel! ........ so again, are ES thinking FS8, FS9 and nice cardboard 2D panels, when most of us using FSX are thinking beautifully rendered virtual cockpits.I am obtaining a refund from the Flight 1 system but purely becase of the 'no key assignments' issue. Were it not for this, I would recommend the aircraft to all jet fans. As it is, I can only recommend it to 2D panel fans and those happy to use mouse clicks for all control of their jet.Regards,

[N400QW 205]

David, as always you are welcome to use our 30 Day refund if dissatisfied for any reason and we are glad you've done so.A return of an aircraft of this type over having to click a heading bug mouse click seems a bit severe to us but hey that is not our call. :( Dont' worry about raining on our parade. We are aware that some prefer VC/Track IR and no mouse click flying and you are certainly a proponent of that technique.I couldn't help but wonder about the long treatise here on your likes vs dislikes about our new project until I remembered what F1 endured in these very forums after their Mustang release.Glad to see you've linked back to our forum as it includes my response as well.At any rate, we thank you for all the positive things you've posted and we'll try to overlook the bias toward 2D and VC packages. :(

[Guest PPSFA]

I'm afraid to ask, but was multiplayer/ shared cockpit considered and implemented ?