My Citation X 2.0 Extreme impressions

[Spaceman3 1]

I just want to thank the original poster for the honest review. Thank you for saving my time and money on an airplane with a bad VC. To me, that's where you spend 99% of your time when flying. I could care less about the exterior or even if a plane has an exterior. So if a pit looks like garbage then it's no go for me.Again, this kind of information is what makes this place great.

[WarpD 824]

I just want to thank the original poster for the honest review. Thank you for saving my time and money on an airplane with a bad VC. To me, that's where you spend 99% of your time when flying. I could care less about the exterior or even if a plane has an exterior. So if a pit looks like garbage then it's no go for me.Again, this kind of information is what makes this place great.

Define 'bad VC' please.

[Spaceman3 1]

Define 'bad VC' please.

See the ES Citation X2.0 for what I mean. Sure, low quality VC's will result in high FPS and maybe that was ok years ago (I own a couple of their old citation products), but the bar has been raised and I can't see myself flying dated looking cockpits anymore.

[some1 65]

We could have opted to pay for a license for FSUIPC ourselves (as example PMDG does, I believe)... but would have to raise the price of the aircraft accordingly, and that license would only be valid for our aircraft alone. So, you would have had to get FSUIPC, install it... without a license, and then it only is used for one aircraft. By purchasing your own license, you can use FSUIPC features... of which there are a great deal more than what we're using it for... with all your aircraft.

Like it or not, you ended up as the only developer who says to customers: "buy FSUIPC to make this part work". You can say it's for their own good, but I don't see it this way.

Regarding FSUIPC vs SimConnect, I completely disagree. I was part of the FSX beta and can assure you that implementing FADEC with SimConnect would be anything but easy. This isn't about FS9 vs FSX, though you clearly believe it is. It's about ease of functionality and SimConnect is not the way to go.

Unfortunately I wasn't part of the FSX beta, so I may not have all the experience from working with ACES that you have. But using SimConnect I've done very similar thing for one of the FSX developers. And I can assure you that implementing FADEC with SimConnect would be anything but hard. At least for me. It may not be the easiest interface to use at the beginning, but it's powerful. And you don't have to pay for a license.

Since we build for both sim versions that would seem to mean that you see no value in supporting FS9.

You are right, I see no value in supporting FS9 both as a customer (I don't buy for FS9) and as a developer (I don't develop for FS9), even though I still have FS2004 installed and play it occasionally. When you develop plane for both sim versions, you eventually either hack FS9 plane to work and look like in FSX, or make FSX plane that works and looks like in FS9. Anyway we're on a FSX subforum discussing FSX aircraft release, so I don't want to hear excuses: "it's done this way because it has to work in FS2004 too" :(

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Squirrel, I thought you had returned the product for a refund. If so, are you still flying the aircraft contrary to the refund agreement?A simple yes or no will suffice. If you've received a refund and are still flying the plane contrary to the refund agreement why come here a preach to us?We handle our development decisons based on large numbers, not just a few peoples feedback. And this is certainly not a defensive posture. :(

I have returned it, and uninstalled it. I'm trying to give you some feedback for the reason, along with serveral other people, which you seem to be ignoring. Still.Accusing me of piracy is most definitely defensive. Oh, well, if you choose to ignore your customers, so be it.

[N400QW 205]

Like it or not, you ended up as the only developer who says to customers: "buy FSUIPC to make this part work". You can say it's for their own good, but I don't see it this way.Unfortunately I wasn't part of the FSX beta, so I may not have all the experience from working with ACES that you have. But using SimConnect I've done very similar thing for one of the FSX developers. And I can assure you that implementing FADEC with SimConnect would be anything but hard. At least for me. It may not be the easiest interface to use at the beginning, but it's powerful. And you don't have to pay for a license.You are right, I see no value in supporting FS9 both as a customer (I don't buy for FS9) and as a developer (I don't develop for FS9), even though I still have FS2004 installed and play it occasionally. When you develop plane for both sim versions, you eventually either hack FS9 plane to work and look like in FSX, or make FSX plane that works and looks like in FS9. Anyway we're on a FSX subforum discussing FSX aircraft release, so I don't want to hear excuses: "it's done this way because it has to work in FS2004 too" :(

We are fine with our decisions even if you are not. If we need your input at the next planning meeting we'll contact you.Frankly, we don't offer excuses, we offer products and solutions. What you want or don't want to hear is not our concern. Clear enough?

[N400QW 205]

I have returned it, and uninstalled it. I'm trying to give you some feedback for the reason, along with serveral other people, which you seem to be ignoring. Still.Accusing me of piracy is most definitely defensive. Oh, well, if you choose to ignore your customers, so be it.

Hardly defensive to have you set the record straight Squirrel.The question is what is your interest here given that you've returned the product, are unharmed, and obviously have no reason to use it.The users here are big boys who are obviously able to determine what is valuable to them and their purposes.Intelligent people have shown that they are quite capable and free to make choices on their own and hardly need you to hold their hand. :(

[michal 44]

The question is what is your interest here given that you've returned the product

?? This is a very strange talk. And it is coming from developers... interesting.And what is this forum for ... to exchange ideas/opinions, isn't it?. Yes, we are all big boys here but we often like to hear what other 'big' boys have to say. I can totally dismiss what Flamin_Squirrel is saying or I can give it a fair hearing, it is MY OWN prerogative. I haven't seen such defensive/offensive posture exhibited by any other developer on these forums before ...

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

I'm not posting to give my point of view to your potential customers, I'm giving my point of view to you.The reason I, and I imagine several others are bothering is because I (we) can see you've obviously got the potential to make an excellent product, including a decent VC if you so decided. You are being defensive, because you're still not addressing the issue. Either state your business model wont allow you to spend more time on VCs, or take what's been said on board for your next product.

[N400QW 205]

?? This is a very strange talk. And it is coming from developers... interesting.And what is this forum for ... to exchange ideas/opinions, isn't it?. Yes, we are all big boys here but we often like to hear what other 'big' boys have to say. I can totally dismiss what Flamin_Squirrel is saying or I can give it a fair hearing, it is MY OWN prerogative. I haven't seen such defensive/offensive posture exhibited by any other developer on these forums before ...

Neither defensive or offensive just my opinion in the "exchange of ideas".Developers are no different than simmers in that they have opinions and ideas to share as well.Well, there is a first time for everything. :(

[Jean-Paul 167]

I haven't seen such defensive/offensive posture exhibited by any other developer on these forums before ...

Neither have I :(

[N400QW 205]

I'm not posting to give my point of view to your potential customers, I'm giving my point of view to you.The reason I, and I imagine several others are bothering is because I (we) can see you've obviously got the potential to make an excellent product, including a decent VC if you so decided. You are being defensive, because you're still not addressing the issue. Either state your business model wont allow you to spend more time on VCs, or take what's been said on board for your next product.

For the record, we not defensive at all. :(We knew your opinion the first two times you mentioned it, why repeat it over and over? Here is my previous answer to another and had you read it you would have a clearer idea about this project."Thanks for the kind words Scott. I just took another look at the VC myself and can see some areas that can be spruced up. In addition, our friend Chuck Jodry has offered his assistance as well. What that means to customers is that we will make every effort to include any improvements we can reasonably make to the package available in the afforementioned Hotfix 1.1.Again, many thanks for your support and patience in these matters."

[N400QW 205]

Neither have I :(

Well Jean Paul, there certainly is a first time for everything...The notion that developers should somehow be prohibited from the afformentioned "exchange of opinions and ideas" seems rather biased to us. :( Oops, there I go again with the "exchange of ideas and opinions".At the end of the day, we are sim enthusiasts and people with ideas and emotions just as you are. Wearing a developer hat doesn't change those facts.

[some1 65]

We are fine with our decisions even if you are not. If we need your input at the next planning meeting we'll contact you.Frankly, we don't offer excuses, we offer products and solutions. What you want or don't want to hear is not our concern. Clear enough?

I think you have taken my previous post too personal.

What you want or don't want to hear is not our concern.

Thankfully, I havent bought your product yet, because if I were your customer, this comment would offend me a bit.

[N400QW 205]

I think you have taken my previous post too personal.Thankfully, I havent bought your product yet, because if I were your customer, this comment would offend me a bit.

You may need to rethink how offensive your own post semed. It seemed rather arrogant that you have no regard for FS9 development and further imposed yourself on our practices with an arrogant "I don't want to hear excuses" phrase.Sorry, but as we say here in the midwest.."that dog won't hunt".