Eaglesoft Cit-X (Again)

[N400QW 205]

May I add that you are correct when you say that the cropped image without antialiazing doesn't do it justice.Try this..run your monitor at either the 1600X1200 4:3 Ratio or select 1680X1050 or higher Widescreen version. Be sure antialiasing is turned on.Load a dusk or dawn flight, set the fully dimmable text and gauge lighting to preference, go to the VC and enjoy a feature and view that, to our knowledge, is not available in any other CX. :(

[michal 44]

I'm not going to get into comparing it with anything else to show

Oh... yes, I certainly don't intend to make some folks touchy here, not my intention at all, but there is a 'certain' product very recently released that has beautiful photo-real detailed VC, all knobs in 3D and somehow their fps is far from slide show, in fact it runs very smooth. Oh, and by the way, their screen shots look breathtaking even though limited by the same forum JPG compression rules. It is one thing to say - we chose not to do it, another to say - it is not doable.

[Guest Astradan]

I agree with the OP's suggestion that the real weakness of the CX 2.0's VC is that it just doesn't feel multi-dimensional, immersive or real in the way that modern generation VC's do. I accept this is subjective but a LOT of people are making these similar statements! It is flat, with rough textures in places, a lack of any 'fibre' on the panels to make you believe they are real aircraft panels and not blurry blobs of drawn colour.Ron & Ed will of course take great offence and argue otherwise but the fact is, the VC in the new Eaglesoft Citation X 2.0 looks like a FS2002 to FS2004 port, rather than anything that has been developed for FSX natively. Now I am not arguing that it's not an FSX native aircraft - ok, it is - but..... it just doesn't measure anywhere near even the average quality of VC's being released fo FSX these days.Although I accept this is a 'FSX native product' in terms of DDS etc, in effect it just 'looks' so much like a FS2002/FS2004 port to FSX.And, where are those FSX camera views ? :(

[WarpD 824]

I agree with the OP's suggestion that the real weakness of the CX 2.0's VC is that it just doesn't feel multi-dimensional, immersive or real in the way that modern generation VC's do. I accept this is subjective but a LOT of people are making these similar statements! It is flat, with rough textures in places, a lack of any 'fibre' on the panels to make you believe they are real aircraft panels and not blurry blobs of drawn colour.Ron & Ed will of course take great offence and argue otherwise but the fact is, the VC in the new Eaglesoft Citation X 2.0 looks like a FS2002 to FS2004 port, rather than anything that has been developed for FSX natively. Now I am not arguing that it's not an FSX native aircraft - ok, it is - but..... it just doesn't measure anywhere near even the average quality of VC's being released fo FSX these days.Although I accept this is a 'FSX native product' in terms of DDS etc, in effect it just 'looks' so much like a FS2002/FS2004 port to FSX.And, where are those FSX camera views ? :(

You requested a refund and as such are no longer a customer... or had you forgotten that part?

Oh... yes, I certainly don't intend to make some folks touchy here, not my intention at all, but there is a 'certain' product very recently released that has beautiful photo-real detailed VC, all knobs in 3D and somehow their fps is far from slide show, in fact it runs very smooth. Oh, and by the way, their screen shots look breathtaking even though limited by the same forum JPG compression rules. It is one thing to say - we chose not to do it, another to say - it is not doable.

Please count the physical number of CRT-type displays on the Citation X. Please tell me how many other aircraft have that same number of CRT-type displays. Please tell me how many addons are made of those aircraft. Please tell me of those addons how detailed the 3D is... oh, and photo-real... isn't... if you'd like I can go into excruciating detail as to why it can't possibly be photo-real. :(Oh, and while we're at it. I want someone to point to an addon aircraft that has 100% fully variable panel lighting in both 2D and VC.

[Guest jsgoldman]

Guys:As a modeler and x-member of FSD I have to agree with Bill and Ron, there is a trade-off to anything that is developed for FSX, and that trade-off affects frame rates (lower) and "what I call" flight fluidity. I think there use of 2d switches in such a complex panel is 100% justified, the use of 3D switches would have caused to much of a performance hit. As a developer we have to keep in mind a real balance between performance and eye candy. I still remember the FSD FSX Commander and some performance issues on medium and lower end PC due to its very complex 3D panel).As for panel textures, this is a personal issue, I am sure that repaints will be forth-coming that will customize and add to the so-called depth perception. As I am no longer member of any specific development group, I will also offer Ron and Eaglesoft any help and support (free) to help all customers remain happy with their Citation purchase.BestJim GoldmanFreelance Modeler

You requested a refund and as such are no longer a customer... or had you forgotten that part?Please count the physical number of CRT-type displays on the Citation X. Please tell me how many other aircraft have that same number of CRT-type displays. Please tell me how many addons are made of those aircraft. Please tell me of those addons how detailed the 3D is... oh, and photo-real... isn't... if you'd like I can go into excruciating detail as to why it can't possibly be photo-real. :(Oh, and while we're at it. I want someone to point to an addon aircraft that has 100% fully variable panel lighting in both 2D and VC.

[wombat778 0]

Oh... yes, I certainly don't intend to make some folks touchy here, not my intention at all, but there is a 'certain' product very recently released that has beautiful photo-real detailed VC, all knobs in 3D and somehow their fps is far from slide show.

Actually, at least on my machine, the J41 (which is what I assume you are talking about) is quite heavy on the FPS. The other thing is that the J41 cockpit to my eye is really suited to that level of detail. For example, most of the switches in the J41 seem to be of the rocker type, which I imagine use fewer polygons than trying to do all the Citation's little round flip switches in 3D. Even then, PMDG acknowledge that the J41 is just at the limit of what FSX is capable of, and a number of people get weird polygons flashing when things bog down too much. In short, the J41 is a fantastic and beautiful plane, but I am not sure if it is possible for all addons to have that level of VC detail.

[N400QW 205]

I agree with the OP's suggestion that the real weakness of the CX 2.0's VC is that it just doesn't feel multi-dimensional, immersive or real in the way that modern generation VC's do. I accept this is subjective but a LOT of people are making these similar statements! It is flat, with rough textures in places, a lack of any 'fibre' on the panels to make you believe they are real aircraft panels and not blurry blobs of drawn colour.Ron & Ed will of course take great offence and argue otherwise but the fact is, the VC in the new Eaglesoft Citation X 2.0 looks like a FS2002 to FS2004 port, rather than anything that has been developed for FSX natively. Now I am not arguing that it's not an FSX native aircraft - ok, it is - but..... it just doesn't measure anywhere near even the average quality of VC's being released fo FSX these days.Although I accept this is a 'FSX native product' in terms of DDS etc, in effect it just 'looks' so much like a FS2002/FS2004 port to FSX.And, where are those FSX camera views ? :(

David, I have no idea how you quantify a LOT of people so we reject your view as not authoritive.In other words your opinion is just that, your opinion. Nothing more or nothing less.Just an FYI on the term "flat". Anyone who has been in a Citation Jet cockpit will tell you that they are painted flat grey without "fibre".The simple reason is that it is undesireable to have reflective surfaces in real world cockpits. The sim does not handle grey colors well but that's another discussion.You told us that you had obtained a refund. If so, are you still flying the aircraft contrary the requirements for a refund?I can do a lookup myself but wanted to ask you publically because I'm beginning to question your veracity given your recent false allegations about our product.I've posted the answer to the camera views here: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=265811And right here:Eaglesoft FSX Citation Extreme V2.0 Custom Camers Views have now been "rolled into" the current Download Package.Those who wish to have those views may simply redownload and reinstall using personal key and password.Don't wish to redownload and reinstall for camera views. Then download the Camera Views.zip from our Downloads Page here: http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/downloads.htmBe sure to follow the instructions. Blue skies guys.

[wombat778 0]

Just an FYI on the term "flat". Anyone who has been in a Citation Jet cockpit will tell you that they are painted flat grey without "fibre".

Interesting. I looked up a cockpit photo of the real Citation X on google images and I see what you mean. The real cockpit does look surprisingly flat and cartoony. I think y'all convinced me, and I will probably pick this up tonight...

[Guest PPSFA]

Oh, and while we're at it. I want someone to point to an addon aircraft that has 100% fully variable panel lighting in both 2D and VC.

PMDG MD 11A question I haven't see yet, after watching all these threads......A friend of mine had the X and says that in order to get the FMS to accept inputs, both left and right FMC's have to be programmed, is this correct or is he doing something wrong?

[WarpD 824]

Regarding FMS inputs... not sure what you mean.Both sides have to have their position initialized independantly, because they're linked to independant IRUs. Aside from that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[N400QW 205]

PMDG MD 11A question I haven't seen yet, after watching all these threads......A friend of mine had the X and says that in order to get the FMS to accept inputs, both left and right FMC's have to be programmed, is this correct or is he doing something wrong?

Yes and no...Actually both FMSs have an Initial Alignment Procedure that Must be done on both PRIOR to proceeding to flight planning, building, etc.After that procedure is completed, [takes about three to five seconds and is per real world operation and is fully documented] a plan built in one FMS is duplicated in the other. :( He certainly didn't follow the proper procedure as documented.

[Guest PPSFA]

Tks, passed along

[Dougal 165]

Interesting. I looked up a cockpit photo of the real Citation X on google images and I see what you mean. The real cockpit does look surprisingly flat and cartoony. I think y'all convinced me, and I will probably pick this up tonight...

Having read the above post, I thought it only fair to go and have a look myself at some online stills and videos. Now though, I really must beg to differ from that view. After seeing the pics I'm even more disappointed than previously. I almost wish I hadn't looked.How so very bizarre that any two people can look at the same picture and have very different perceptions.I guess it probably says more about me than the addon...... that I find visuals to be more important than systems perhaps.

[N400QW 205]

Having read the above post, I thought it only fair to go and have a look myself at some online stills and videos. Now though, I really must beg to differ from that view. After seeing the pics I'm even more disappointed than previously. I almost wish I hadn't looked.How so very bizarre that any two people can look at the same picture and have very different perceptions.I guess it probably says more about me than the addon...... that I find visuals to be more important than systems perhaps.

Phil, It does but the reality is that many simmers would rather go for appearance than function. Of course the ideal is to have appearance and function together.At the end of the day, folks decide to purchase or keep a product based on their personal balance of those two factors. :(

[wombat778 0]

How so very bizarre that any two people can look at the same picture and have very different perceptions.I guess it probably says more about me than the addon...... that I find visuals to be more important than systems perhaps.

Indeed, it is bizarre. But then again, I am definitely one that prefers systems to the visuals.I bought it tonight and I really don't think the VC is too bad. The flatness of knobs/switches is no big deal to me, and I think actually looks better than some that try to model switches using too few polys. In any event, my only real complaint on the VC is a couple of minor texture misalignments, which presumably will get fixed at some point in the future (I assume the Eaglesoft guys are aware of these, but if not I am happy to e-mail/post screenies if helpful). In short, the VC is fine for my purposes. Now I actually have to figure out how to fly the thing, which I haven't even tried yet...