Hi Flavio (and anyone else who has the Citation),I was wondering if you could give a little more info about the VC. I am very interested in buying this bird for the systems modeling, but I am a VC only simmer. Is it ugly because of the flatness, low resolution texture (or just plain ugly)? Is there any chance you could post a few screenshots of the VC to show the bad parts? I have looked at the screenshots and videos and the VC seems "ok" (albeit a bit flat), but the resolution in the screens/videos is too low to really tell.Thanks!

Ok, i

You have our permission but we don't speak for Avsim. :(

Ron,I don't think you do yourself any favours by clubbing me over the head (albeit passive aggresively) on a public forum, for my valid views.The "Thinly disguised agenda" comment is unwarranted, way off the mark and frankly, childish.I've been a supporter and very long term customer of Eaglesoft for many years and have bought virtually everything you have released.Yes I am representing a quartile of the hobby (opposed to mouse clicks without choice) that you may be uncomfortable with, given that you've released a product which wholly neglects it but this is not the Eaglesoft forum, respectfully, this is AVSIM, where members of the hobby can express views, and I maintain that my view that you made a choice not to bother implementing any type of keyboard assignability (rather than this be some sort of limitation, as is being alluded) is a valid view.I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong - you are entitled to make any decision you want for any of your products, obviously.However, I have pointed out that you have ommited something important to many simmers, something that almost all other developers include, and something which almost all previous Eaglesoft products have included.An alternative strategy (rathern than showing that you are clearly getting irritated by the valid point I have made), may have been to say something along the lines of "we made the decision not to put any offsets for the AP into this one, sorry it's not for you", rather than constant points about having to us a mouse being a 'petty' decision to get a refund, etc.Witout any sour grapes at all, I also share the view that the VC is below par on this release. It is visually way below par for VCs being released from other major devs like Flight 1, PMDG, Captain Sim, etc, and it is even below par against your own Beechcraft 400A VC for FS9. You want examples:-- Look at the red buttons on the Yoke !- Look at the low rez, blurry window pillars- Look at the slightly fuzzy text on the MIP.Sorry but this just doesn't look like a FSX virtual cockpit released in 2009. The FMC is good and seems robust, and FLC etc perform well, and I appreciate this is ESDG's first foray into his level of custom systems programming, but I am sorry to say that aside from far improved hand-flying characteristics and the sound file, this release offers nothing that was not already available in the Feelthere Citation X released over 2 years ago. That had full systems coverage, VNAV, FLC, etc. (and a slightly higher resolution looking VC).Look at the Flight 1 Mustang VC and then look at this Citation X 2.0 VC ; seriously, the fact is they look 10 years apart in texture rendering quality.You defend your position on charging seperately for the FS9 and FSX version of this plane - sorry but I am about to blow that position out of the water with two facts :-1. If the FSX model is truly native and customized, why does the first line in the aircraft.cfg of the FSX model state "for Flight Simulator 2004" ?2. Why does the first line in the sound.cfg of the FSX model state "for Flight Simulator 2004"......big oops there I'm afraid Ron. If you want to state that you charge seperately because these are two entirely different native products, you need to mop up the evidence suggesting otherwise !Sorry if these points are abrasive but for me, this is a highly disappointing release, and Eaglesoft have lost focus on some fundamentals in a quest to get up to speed on custom systems programming, which to be fair they have achieved - but apparantly at the cost of some other quality issues. This product costs more than the PMDG J41 - and doesn't come close to reaching the quality of that product.

Eaglesoft always gets my vote! :(

Eaglesoft have always got my vote too, that's why I'm disappointed with this release. It's so easy to dismiss a critic of a product as have some fantasist agenda to bring down the developer, etc, etc but Ron can look back months and years on his own forums for my name (David Rogers) - I have contributed to the ES forums for some years, and even have a 'sticky' on that forum with some tips for configuring FSX for running Eaglesoft add-ons!I'm not the enemy - I'm a disapointed loyal customer, holding up an inconvenient mirror.

I was wondering if you could give a little more info about the VC. I am very interested in buying this bird for the systems modeling, but I am a VC only simmer. Is it ugly because of the flatness, low resolution texture (or just plain ugly)? Is there any chance you could post a few screenshots of the VC to show the bad parts? I have looked at the screenshots and videos and the VC seems "ok" (albeit a bit flat), but the resolution in the screens/videos is too low to really tell.

I wouldn't call the VC "ugly" - I find it ok if not very exciting, but then I'm somewhat spoiled by the JS41... On the plus side (for me, at least) it has a nice widescreen 2D display with easily accessed popups.Rather than have someone post screenshots of their favorite "bad" parts, why not just get it and see for yourself? There is a 30-day money-back guarantee. Makes buying Eaglesoft aircraft risk-free really, even if your financial situation is such that a $50 purchase is a big deal. Personally I've already had my money's worth in entertainment value learning all the systems...

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."

Tks, yes I missed it somehow. Thats a bummer, I hope someday it becomes the norm, I'd pay no matter what the price

I wouldn't call the VC "ugly" - I find it ok if not very exciting, but then I'm somewhat spoiled by the JS41... On the plus side (for me, at least) it has a nice widescreen 2D display with easily accessed popups.Rather than have someone post screenshots of their favorite "bad" parts, why not just get it and see for yourself? There is a 30-day money-back guarantee. Makes buying Eaglesoft aircraft risk-free really, even if your financial situation is such that a $50 purchase is a big deal. Personally I've already had my money's worth in entertainment value learning all the systems...

Thanks trisager. I am spoiled by the JS41 as well, but I certainly don't demand that insane level of VC quality in all addons. Indeed, I would probably be willing to trade off a bit of the glitz in the JS41 for a bit higher FPS. I am glad to know that someone else who uses the JS41 can use the Citation without finding the VC too distracting. Anyhow, the main reason that I am trying to dig for info is that I generally do not like returning things. Once I buy something I like to commit to it, unless there is something drastic wrong (e.g., it doesn't work on my PC, CTDs etc). I don't think I would ever return something just because I didn't like the cockpit art...Thanks again for your thoughts!

Tks, yes I missed it somehow. Thats a bummer, I hope someday it becomes the norm, I'd pay no matter what the price

I'd love to do it... but after 4+ years on the Citation X alone... I need a break from it.

Ron, I don't think you do yourself any favours by clubbing me over the head (albeit passive aggresively) on a public forum, for my valid views.The "Thinly disguised agenda" comment is unwarranted, way off the mark and frankly, childish.I've been a supporter and very long term customer of Eaglesoft for many years and have bought virtually everything you have released.Yes I am representing a quartile of the hobby (opposed to mouse clicks without choice) that you may be uncomfortable with, given that you've released a product which wholly neglects it but this is not the Eaglesoft forum, respectfully, this is AVSIM, where members of the hobby can express views, and I maintain that my view that you made a choice not to bother implementing any type of keyboard assignability (rather than this be some sort of limitation, as is being alluded) is a valid view.I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong - you are entitled to make any decision you want for any of your products, obviously.However, I have pointed out that you have ommited something important to many simmers, something that almost all other developers include, and something which almost all previous Eaglesoft products have included.An alternative strategy (rathern than showing that you are clearly getting irritated by the valid point I have made), may have been to say something along the lines of "we made the decision not to put any offsets for the AP into this one, sorry it's not for you", rather than constant points about having to us a mouse being a 'petty' decision to get a refund, etc.Witout any sour grapes at all, I also share the view that the VC is below par on this release. It is visually way below par for VCs being released from other major devs like Flight 1, PMDG, Captain Sim, etc, and it is even below par against your own Beechcraft 400A VC for FS9. You want examples:-- Look at the red buttons on the Yoke !- Look at the low rez, blurry window pillars- Look at the slightly fuzzy text on the MIP.Sorry but this just doesn't look like a FSX virtual cockpit released in 2009. The FMC is good and seems robust, and FLC etc perform well, and I appreciate this is ESDG's first foray into his level of custom systems programming, but I am sorry to say that aside from far improved hand-flying characteristics and the sound file, this release offers nothing that was not already available in the Feelthere Citation X released over 2 years ago. That had full systems coverage, VNAV, FLC, etc. (and a slightly higher resolution looking VC).Look at the Flight 1 Mustang VC and then look at this Citation X 2.0 VC ; seriously, the fact is they look 10 years apart in texture rendering quality.You defend your position on charging seperately for the FS9 and FSX version of this plane - sorry but I am about to blow that position out of the water with two facts :-1. If the FSX model is truly native and customized, why does the first line in the aircraft.cfg of the FSX model state "for Flight Simulator 2004" ?2. Why does the first line in the sound.cfg of the FSX model state "for Flight Simulator 2004"......big oops there I'm afraid Ron. If you want to state that you charge seperately because these are two entirely different native products, you need to mop up the evidence suggesting otherwise !Sorry if these points are abrasive but for me, this is a highly disappointing release, and Eaglesoft have lost focus on some fundamentals in a quest to get up to speed on custom systems programming, which to be fair they have achieved - but apparantly at the cost of some other quality issues. This product costs more than the PMDG J41 - and doesn't come close to reaching the quality of that product.

David, I'll address each of your points in order.First, it appears that you've removed any semblence of disguise for your personal, business, or public agenda, right here for all to see.You are doing a great job at "clubbing yourself over the head" right here in these forums.Thinking people hardly need Eaglesoft to point out what is extremely obvious to even the casual observer. :( Your views on keyboard shortcut support for FS Products was made obvious the first 5 to 6 times you mentioned it. We merely disagree with your assumption that you represent a majority in the FS Community when that is clearly not the case.We posted the reason why that feature was not included and even posted that it may be included down the road.What is so difficult for you to understand about that? You've totally ignored our answers, and chosen to treat us as embeciles.What others include or do not include has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the complexities of our work anymore than ours do to them.Are we clear on this?Your and others opinion of the VC is already known so we see no reason for you to beat the dead horse unless it provides you some pleasure.Your loud and repeated criticism of the project does lead us and others to see your agenda for what it is. The only question left is how many more times you will repeat yourself. Do you really need this much attention David?Your comparison of the FT CX to ours shows a complete and woeful lack of knowledge on your part. Real world CX 750 Pilots tell us that the FT Product doesn't hold a candle to ours.Statements like the FT Product is a "joke and cannot perform what is needed" from real world CX Pilots doesn't bode well.It may interst you to know that there are direct copies of features from our CX1.0 contained in the FT product but I'll leave that discussion for another time and thread.I'm about to blow your false assumptions out of the water so pay close attention now..Aircraft.cfg HeaderAircraft.cfg header text is for internal use and is often included in releases to designate a particular version.The important part to remember David is that the header text has absolutely zero effect on the actual configuration values contained below the header.We could have typed in David, Eaglesoft, or left it Blank and it would not make one whit of difference to the simulator.Aircraft.cfgs are simple text files which Configure an Aircraft for a certain sim variation be it FS9 or FSX. The same holds true for Sound.cfg files and their headers text.Fact. The FS9 and FSX aircraft cfgs differ per sim demand below the header and the text header will be revised on next update so folks like you aren't confused.Fact. The Model File and Texture Files meets all the criteria for what we call FSX Certified and others call FSX "Native"Fact. The Avionics Files meet same criteria.Fact. The Configuration Files meet the same criteria.I'm calling you a liar to your face for inferring falsely, no falsely and publically alleging that we have somehow mislead folks with our FSX Product offerings. Big OOPs there David. So you see there is no mopping up needed unless you need to mop your own bile after making false assumptions and allegations against us.

This back and forth is getting old and uncivilized. Let's all cool down a bit and try again later.For the poster asking about posting screenshots - you are more than welcome to. Just keep them within the guidelines (available in my signature). Perhaps you can let this thread cool off a bit and start a new one with your images.*EDIT* My mistake, I haven't added that to my signature yet. You can visit the screenshots forum for guidance. Look at the top of the forum.