I'm so, so torn whether or not to keep this birdLike all other Eaglesoft aircraft, it does, whithout doubt 'feel' absolutely wonderful to fly, especially by hand. The system representations in the FMC are IMHO some of the best to date for FSX - even I haven't been able to break/crash it yet :( I've no idea if the sounds are acuate as per the real CX, but they are indeed great to listen to with the sound & bass cranked up! The spooling up & down is just magic. I've been sitting on the tarmac simply doing that :( and ignoring my takeoff clearance.If other posts are correct, then there are no doubt other great features I haven't yet discovered.BUT..... It's just that VC. I've seen it described as more representative of an FS9 addon than FSX and, sadly, I must agree.Have a look at the two together. Surely, that could/should have been improved upon?She is truely a 'high fidelity' piece of 'art' in other area's, and were it not for the VC, would IMO justify the price.

Guess my pics were too big eh?

am I looking at the same low quality VC that v1 had? Really? I could have sworn they were claiming during development to make the VC higher resolution and easier to read. Looks to me like most writing is almost illegible, including the most important panel, the auto pilot

am I looking at the same low quality VC that v1 had? Really? I could have sworn they were claiming during development to make the VC higher resolution and easier to read. Looks to me like most writing is almost illegible, including the most important panel, the auto pilot

You would be completely wrong. That picture was taken with the 'camera' moved back and set at 50% zoom. Then the image was reduced significantly in size. It is not an accurate representation of the current VC at all.

am I looking at the same low quality VC that v1 had? Really? I could have sworn they were claiming during development to make the VC higher resolution and easier to read. Looks to me like most writing is almost illegible, including the most important panel, the auto pilot

No, you are actually looking at a very low-resolution screenshot that's been completely compromised by the size and JPG compression process. You really MUST see this in the actual sim on YOUR monitor to detect the huge differences.Even this cropped image does not do justice to what is seen in FSX on your monitor:Shot at 2009-11-08

My issue is with the 'depth', not the resolution. There is no 'feel' of being in the cockpit like some other VCs achieve. It all just seems so 'flat'. No feeling of 3D at all.I would think that's a design issue rather than one of resolution surely?....and team Eaglesoft, please don't think i'm trashing your work. I'm not. As a previous customer, I generally love your aircraft, I just don't like these particular graphics in FSX is all.

We chose to not model all switches and knobs as 3D due to performance concerns.Had we modeled them and the frame rates tanked.... you'd be seriously upset.In short, we can't win no matter what. :(

I don't mind the lack of 3d switches and I understand the trade off, but I think a little more depth in the textures or some weathering could really improve things.

We didn't model used... you bought it new.As for depth... go look at a photo of a real one. :(

We didn't model used... you bought it new.As for depth... go look at a photo of a real one. :(

Ed that's just the point. It looks too flat - like a photograph.

Ed that's just the point. It looks too flat - like a photograph.

Ouch! That probably hurt, sorry!

Ok... maybe this will make it clear.By modelling all the switches in 3D... your flight would have been a slideshow. That clear it up any?

My issue is with the 'depth', not the resolution. There is no 'feel' of being in the cockpit like some other VCs achieve. It all just seems so 'flat'. No feeling of 3D at all.I would think that's a design issue rather than one of resolution surely?

3d is 3d. It simply cannot get "more 3d" than it is. Notice that every instrument on the panel has 3d depth. In fact, they have the precise "depth" as the real instruments.. Notice that the eyebrow extends a full 5" beyond the main panel...Dougal, you wrote: "She is truely a 'high fidelity' piece of 'art' in other area's, and were it not for the VC..."The same graphics artist created ALL of the bitmaps used in this aircraft... :(

Ok... maybe this will make it clear.By modelling all the switches in 3D... your flight would have been a slideshow. That clear it up any?

It's not about the individual modelling of switches for me. It's the overall look. It looks 'harsh' - no softness anywhere that natural lighting gives. Sharp corners where there would be shadowing - that sort of thing.I'm not going to get into comparing it with anything else to show what I mean 'cos that doesn't help and, rather than risk further offence, I'll stop at that (I can't help my opinion).Bottom line is you're right..... 'You can't please 'em all'

No, you are actually looking at a very low-resolution screenshot that's been completely compromised by the size and JPG compression process. You really MUST see this in the actual sim on YOUR monitor to detect the huge differences.Even this cropped image does not do justice to what is seen in FSX on your monitor:Shot at 2009-11-08

I stand corrected :) Thanks for posting that, off to purchase her!!

I stand corrected :) Thanks for posting that, off to purchase her!!

For what it's worth, I believe you are making the right choice. I do not understand a lot of the comments regarding the visual appeal of Eaglesoft's Citation X. For my money both the 2D panels and VC are very good, especially where it counts - the gauge displays. Fonts and all information is crisp and readable in the VC from all kinds of angles and different levels of zoom. I run at 1920x1200 32 bit using the WS displays and get very reasonable FPS in all situations.