I don't have FSUIPC, not a registered one, just the free version of it, and I don't want to pay 30 more euros to be able to use the CXv2 completly.Am I right ??

I own a registered version of FSUIPC, so my view is obviously colored by that, but: Eaglesoft evidently felt they had to use the FSUIPC SDK to implement some functions in their FADEC. As long as they make the requirement clear pre-sale (which they do), I think it is OK to require it. (Even if someone buys it and is surprised they have to buy FSUIPC also, there is still the generous 30-day money-back guarantee).I'm guessing that they figure that most FS users who are buying advanced addon aircraft own FSUIPC already, but yes, if you don't it does make the addon expensive.Tom

I'm guessing that they figure that most FS users who are buying advanced addon aircraft own FSUIPC already, but yes, if you don't it does make the addon expensive.Tom

hum

hum

I'm not sure if you are trying to pick a fight here, but no, I'm not saying that any specific other addon aircraft requires a licensed copy of FSUIPC, merely that I think it is likely that customers of advanced addon aircraft already own it (e.g. for wind smoothing and joystick calibration).I'm also saying that I don't see the problem, as long as the requirement is clearly stated.

I agree.It is stated, so it is clear.It is just sad that you can't enjoy it without FSUIPC.It adds more euros if you don't have FSIUPC, that's all.By the way, does FSUIPC solve the windshift problem ? (IAS suddenly decrease or increase!)Some say no. I have REX2.0 and the wind changes of speed and direction is annoying...

There's really no need to pile on the adjectives when disapproving of a product. I think the point could have been made without "inexcusable", "terrible", "not pretty", and "unpleasent".......seems like a little much. Perhaps a friendly chat with the developer(s) of a product would go a lot further towards advancing the debate so that we can all participate in a welcoming environment. The need to be civil applies to both sides.

Fair enough, I'll try and be more constructive.From what I can see, ES are the only group to do this class of bizjet to any real depth. With the lack of competition, the opportunity was there to put out a product that was excellent in every aspect, one that wasn't let down by poor visuals. I think extra could have been charged (I'd have paid more anyway) to provide this.If the whole product was awful, I think people would just ask for their money back and that would be that. I think the reason people seem so annoyed is because people realise how in depth it is, but they get frustrated and have to give up as they can't read the text in the cockpit!

By the way, does FSUIPC solve the windshift problem ? (IAS suddenly decrease or increase!)

Not 100%, but close - and a great improvement over the default behavior. I use ASA which is supposed to have built-in smoothing capabilities, but FSUIPC does a better job (I think even HIFI acknowledges this).Tom

Fair enough, I'll try and be more constructive.From what I can see, ES are the only group to do this class of bizjet to any real depth. With the lack of competition, the opportunity was there to put out a product that was excellent in every aspect, one that wasn't let down by poor visuals. I think extra could have been charged (I'd have paid more anyway) to provide this.If the whole product was awful, I think people would just ask for their money back and that would be that. I think the reason people seem so annoyed is because people realise how in depth it is, but they get frustrated and have to give up as they can't read the text in the cockpit!

I won't argue that point at all. If the text in the cockpit is not legible, than I too would take issue with that. I don't actually know that for a fact because I don't own it, and it probably wouldn't be fair for me to make that determination based on a downsized JPEG screenshot either. I also can't determine what difference there might be on different machines using higher resolution, or any of the other variables that can play a role. Maybe it's time I just buy this thing and find out once and for all. Not sure what the point would be since I don't care much for a Citation, but this debate has me questioning why the opinions vary so drastically.

the original review at the start of this thread is excellent. it really covers what i also believe about this product which my son bought for me but which i got refunded for under the flight 1 guarantee.what is very frustrating is how ron hamilton feels that people are not entitled to criticize this product on this forum. i am not saying that hundreds of people are unhappy with it but obviously a fair amount are as a number of posts talk of refunds.ron is being almost respectful on this thread now as i think there are 2 or maybe 3 modertaors involved on this thread!but in past discussions his conduct has been abusive and i have complained to avsim on that effect.sorry for any bad english,Magne.

Just to compare.......Real CitXIMAGE REMOVED - NO COPYRIGHTED IMAGES PERMITTED IN THE FORUMSEaglesoft CitXI find the VC very functional,easy to read gauges and great on FPS.

I find the VC very functional,easy to read gauges and great on FPS.

I agree that the gauges are generally easy to read (but far off the state of the art gauges we're seeing in the likes of the PMDG MD-11 and J41).My criticism of the VC is the lack of texturing in the grey panelling that forms most of the VC. It's not necessarily about a 'weathered' or worn look, there just isn't any attempt to texture the panel to make it look real. No shading, no illusion of dimension. It just looks coloured in.I agree that generally the screen shots look ok for the VC but my experience was that the real plane, in my FSX, did not look as attractive. (all subjective). As the original reviewer in this thread stated, moving from the feelThere Citation to this version felt like a 'downgrade'. I can think of a lot of features I lost (key assignments, configurability, fsx camera views in the original release) but nothing I gained.

I agree that the gauges are generally easy to read (but far off the state of the art gauges we're seeing in the likes of the PMDG MD-11 and J41).My criticism of the VC is the lack of texturing in the grey panelling that forms most of the VC. It's not necessarily about a 'weathered' or worn look, there just isn't any attempt to texture the panel to make it look real. No shading, no illusion of dimension. It just looks coloured in.I agree that generally the screen shots look ok for the VC but my experience was that the real plane, in my FSX, did not look as attractive. (all subjective). As the original reviewer in this thread stated, moving from the feelThere Citation to this version felt like a 'downgrade'. I can think of a lot of features I lost (key assignments, configurability, fsx camera views in the original release) but nothing I gained.

The 'grey panelling' is exactly that. A flat metal panel with flat gray paint on it. As for your claims that Feelthere's is somehow better... how about these two images for people to compare to see what you're talking about:Feelthere's VC:Eaglesoft's VC:Now please... explain exactly what texturing Feelthere has that Eaglesoft does not.Just to be crystal clear, I wouldn't normally do this regarding a competitor's product, but it keeps being thrown in our electronic face as the definitive claim for why our VC is so horrible.

I do not find this VC awfull at all.It is more FS2004-like than FSX-like but it is fine.And the screens (PFD, MFD...) might be a little too big, but, both are similar.I think that people compare this VC with the PMDG VC (J41) which is ... brilliant.To be honest, I'd rather buy a plane with an awfull VC but designed for Hardcore simmers, than a beautiful but non-interactive VC.(PMDG combined visual and simulation quality)

Just to be crystal clear, I wouldn't normally do this regarding a competitor's product, but it keeps being thrown in our electronic face as the definitive claim for why our VC is so horrible.

I don't have the FT Citation, but I'd say that fuzzy screen shots aren't really representative. Quite frankly I'm not really sure what you're trying to show by putting them up either. If one person had said the ES VC was poor, you could ignore them. If two people say it, tell them to stop causing trouble. If lots of people say it, well, perhaps time to stop getting defensive and actually take on board what your customers are saying.

I guess I have a different perspective looking at the two shots Ed just posted.Frankly, I won't be buying either because I just am not into fmc's, and jets with complex systems. I just don't have the time to learn the systems like I should,and I refuse to fly the sim like a game.Looking at both those shots though, I am amazed at both. For the price of a dinner out I am still frankly amazed that one can get something of either of these qualities to add to the sim. I've said it before and I'll say it again-there is no better bargain in life than flight simming...and being an old timer I remember a time of no add ins, then a time of Microsoft only add ins (let's see the add in to add to early fs airports for my state of Michigan only which were composed of a solid line only and cost $40 back in the early '80's-add a little inflation to that price for compare now).So of course any add in is not everone's cup of tea, and some prefer certain aspects that are modelled in one over another.But again, I look at those two shots and am grateful we have the choice and the ability to choose. I hope we will continue to in the future but what a great time for simmers!

I guess I have a different perspective looking at the two shots Ed just posted.Frankly, I won't be buying either because I just am not into fmc's, and jets with complex systems. I just don't have the time to learn the systems like I should,and I refuse to fly the sim like a game.Looking at both those shots though, I am amazed at both. For the price of a dinner out I am still frankly amazed that one can get something of either of these qualities to add to the sim. I've said it before and I'll say it again-there is no better bargain in life than flight simming...and being an old timer I remember a time of no add ins, then a time of Microsoft only add ins (let's see the add in to add to early fs airports for my state of Michigan only which were composed of a solid line only and cost $40 back in the early '80's-add a little inflation to that price for compare now).So of course any add in is not everone's cup of tea, and some prefer certain aspects that are modelled in one over another.But again, I look at those two shots and am grateful we have the choice and the ability to choose. I hope we will continue to in the future but what a great time for simmers!

More wise words have never been spoken in this forum, except for the dinner part.......the Citation would only buy my ever widening hind quarters an appetizer :(