Ron, you stated that ES are looking at pulling out of FS9 development. Are FS9 sales that bad now?Cheers, SLuggy

Although complete silence by the developers about my only question concerning the FPS, i bought the aircraft yesterday and i can say this:PROS:- Acceptable FPS, but not the best (Getting a little less from PMDG and Leveld)- Nice external model- Awesome sound package- Complete and very detailed systems - Navigraph worked perfectly- Nice manualsCONS:- VC really not up to the actual payware aircrafts (It

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. :(

Hi Ron,I don't see issue in my list of pros and cons on this forum. It's important that flight simmers share views and information as a community. I would not want other simmers who like to use key assignments and hardware controllers to buy the CX 2.0 when it has no abilities in this regard at all. I dare say it wouldn't be good for you guys either, disappointed customers, refund processing, etc. It's better that we transparently share views and options - respectfully of course.I really think you are playing down the requirements of a massive section of flight simmers at this time, who have evolved from clicking every control in the cockpit with the mouse. I don't think it's severe at all to choose not to fly an aircraft that I'd need to fly the way I did 6 years ago, when I have other aircraft that I can intuitively control the AP on, using real knobs and buttons. I respect that having no AP functions assigned to standard key offsets is no big deal at all for you and the other team members (otherwise one of you would have shouted up by now, during the development cycle!), but it is a big deal to a lot of simmers. Posts come on here all the time from people asking whether add-on X support key commands for AP / MCP controls. The majority do Ron, that's a fact, and frustratingly, most Eaglesoft add-ons do ! I can turn the heading knob with standard assignments on the CII, CJ1, 400A, XL2. Yes, I know, the CX 2.0 uses many custom features not part of standard FSX (like VNAV, FLC, etc) but the standard features like HDG SEL, HDG BUG +, HDG BUG -, etc could have been mapped.Anyway, I accept your decision - it's a big disappointment that you have dismissed this requirement, as I was looking forward to the CX 2.0 for a long time. But hey ho, upwards and onwards!Regards,

David, I'll simply state that your assumptions regarding what could/couldn't have been mapped are incorrect. I wrote the gauge code, I know. Please stop misleading people by posting as if you know the details of the gauge's code. That too causes problems by giving others the wrong impression. Since the right impression of the product seems to be important to you, then you can understand I'm sure.I'll also state that my original reply to your original post in our forums does not concur with your conclusions regarding whether we will address this or not.

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

Considered, and not done. It would take about six months to write a custom interface for shared cockpit, at the least. The fact is there are literally hundreds of custom variables inside this aircraft's gauge code. So, sharing isn't something that FSX would be able to handle without a ton of custom code to support it.

Hi Ron,I don't see issue in my list of pros and cons on this forum. It's important that flight simmers share views and information as a community. I would not want other simmers who like to use key assignments and hardware controllers to buy the CX 2.0 when it has no abilities in this regard at all. I dare say it wouldn't be good for you guys either, disappointed customers, refund processing, etc. It's better that we transparently share views and options - respectfully of course.I really think you are playing down the requirements of a massive section of flight simmers at this time, who have evolved from clicking every control in the cockpit with the mouse. I don't think it's severe at all to choose not to fly an aircraft that I'd need to fly the way I did 6 years ago, when I have other aircraft that I can intuitively control the AP on, using real knobs and buttons. I respect that having no AP functions assigned to standard key offsets is no big deal at all for you and the other team members (otherwise one of you would have shouted up by now, during the development cycle!), but it is a big deal to a lot of simmers. Posts come on here all the time from people asking whether add-on X support key commands for AP / MCP controls. The majority do Ron, that's a fact, and frustratingly, most Eaglesoft add-ons do ! I can turn the heading knob with standard assignments on the CII, CJ1, 400A, XL2. Yes, I know, the CX 2.0 uses many custom features not part of standard FSX (like VNAV, FLC, etc) but the standard features like HDG SEL, HDG BUG +, HDG BUG -, etc could have been mapped.Anyway, I accept your decision - it's a big disappointment that you have dismissed this requirement, as I was looking forward to the CX 2.0 for a long time. But hey ho, upwards and onwards!Regards,

David, it's not unusual to hear from the VC Only/Track IR/Hardware Peripheal FS Users. We are quite aware of your and their bias but we do disagree with your statement that those user types are somehow a majority of sim enthusiasts.We've not dismissed what you refer to as a "requirement". Remember you do not speak for the rest of the community, just your segment. :( I'll remind you of Ed and my statements from the post you linked.Ed: "There is intent to revisit this down the road as a free update"Ron: "We have a list of things we may, if possible, want to introduce as a free update on a longer term schedule and this will go on that list."Ironically we've been working behind the scenes on full keyboard support for our Avidyne equipped Cirrus Series and those same implimentations will eventually find their way into the CXE V2.0 and other Eaglesoft Series.Perhaps now you understand why we were puzzled over a product return because you needed to use a mouse click, when the majority of users see no issue with mouse use.At any rate, onward and upward here as well. :(

Although complete silence by the developers about my only question concerning the FPS, i bought the aircraft yesterday and i can say this:PROS:- Acceptable FPS, but not the best (Getting a little less from PMDG and Leveld)- Nice external model- Awesome sound package- Complete and very detailed systems - Navigraph worked perfectly- Nice manualsCONS:- VC really not up to the actual payware aircrafts (It

Guys:Congradulations on the Citation's release.. good and best of luckJim Goldman

Guys: Congradulations on the Citation's release.. good and best of luckJim Goldman

Many thanks Jim. :(

Ron, you stated that ES are looking at pulling out of FS9 development. Are FS9 sales that bad now?Cheers, SLuggy

FS9 sales are still rather strong but building for two platforms is becoming quite an extra load on manpower.If overall FS9 sales do decline to a point where it is not worthwhile then of course we will opt out of FS9 projects.It's really up to the FS9 guys to determine the future. :(

David, I'll simply state that your assumptions regarding what could/couldn't have been mapped are incorrect. I wrote the gauge code, I know. Please stop misleading people by posting as if you know the details of the gauge's code. That too causes problems by giving others the wrong impression. Since the right impression of the product seems to be important to you, then you can understand I'm sure.I'll also state that my original reply to your original post in our forums does not concur with your conclusions regarding whether we will address this or not.Considered, and not done. It would take about six months to write a custom interface for shared cockpit, at the least. The fact is there are literally hundreds of custom variables inside this aircraft's gauge code. So, sharing isn't something that FSX would be able to handle without a ton of custom code to support it.

Ed,You're right I did not write the gauge code and I'm not party to Eaglesoft's coding methodology. However I am talking about design and design choices here. There are literally dozens of products available that offer keyboard assignments, in one of three approaches:-- The AP is entirely based on FSX default and functions are mapped to standard key offsets. (EXAMPLE: Eaglesoft CJ1)- The AP has a mixture of default FSX and custom AP programming, only the default FSX AP offsets are present. (EXAMPLE: Flight 1 Mustang)- The AP is entirely customized and full custom key assignment configuration has been provided (EXAMPLE: Level D or FeelThere).The fourth category here of course is:-- AP uses some FSX default AP, and some custom AP code. Developer chose not to map any key offsets even for the default FSX AP functions (EXAMPLE: Captain Sim, ES CX 2.0)I wholly appreciate the complexity of the coding but do not mislead people that design choices you made, are in anyway 'limitations'. Other developers have provided what people want here, for a reason ; they understand that simmers want it !

I've changed my mind. It's of no value to reply, interact or discuss. My opinion is you have an agenda... and I'll simply walk away sir.

David wrote:"I wholly appreciate the complexity of the coding but do not mislead people that design choices you made, are in anyway 'limitations'. Other developers have provided what people want here, for a reason ; they understand that simmers want it!" Our answer to this statement is that you are wrong in your assumptions and your statement does indeed "mislead" people here in this forum.Read the following carefully so you can distinguish the difference betwen a design choice and a design choice implimentation.David, speaking of design choice ignores, at least from our perspective, the very real issue of design choice implimentation.Ed and I both spoke to the complexity of design choice implimentation for this project in our forum.Again I'll remind you of Ed and my statements from the post you linked.Ed: "There is intent to revisit this down the road as a free update"Ron: "We have a list of things we may, if possible, want to introduce as a free update on a longer term schedule and this will go on that list."You've totally ignored my statement up thread regarding full keyboard support for our Cirrus Series eventually finding its way into projects like CXE V2.0.It's one thing to state your preferences and bias and quite another to treat us as if we are embeciles.This is indeed beginning to seem like a thinly disguised agenda. :(

VC really not up to the actual payware aircrafts (It

Here is all we have for the moment on the "ugly VC" : http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/forum/viewtopic...f=21&t=1823You are welcome to register and login, and peruse the shots for yourself. More to come as schedules permit. :(

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

Ron or anyone, any comment on this?

Ron or anyone, any comment on this?

You must have missed Eds post up thread. I've copied here for your and others benefit.Shared cockpit question?"Considered, and not done. It would take about six months to write a custom interface for shared cockpit, at the least. The fact is there are literally hundreds of custom variables inside this aircraft's gauge code. So, sharing isn't something that FSX would be able to handle without a ton of custom code to support it."