I had the original FS9 version and liked it alot. I hope to purchase this latest rendition soon but was wondering what is it's relative impact on FPS or better yet does this bird offer a smooth flight experience (great landing feel at a low traffic airport)? If it is not out-of-bounds for a forum question, how would it compare to the F1 Mustang in the 'smoothness' area. I own the plane but don't fly it as the fun factor is diminished due to a lack of smoothness. I'm sure that this is all subjective because of different system configurations but I do have a quick (4.2ghz) system with a high-end GPU.jja

I'm flying the Citation on a Q6600 @3.2ghz and have not noticed any performance impact in FSX.Sitting on the tarmac at KTPA, the Mustang in the VC gives me about 24 fps, whereas the Citationruns at about 29 fps on my system.In either case, I am using the fps limiter applet, set at 30.

:(

I have to say I am shocked by that attitude as well.Flight simming is all about immersion (or lack of it) and the virtual cockpit is a huge part of that.Fact is PMDG and number of other devs realise that.I am certain that the VC you released has cost you customers (at least in the short term) until you improve it's appearance.Bryan.

I have to say I am shocked by that attitude as well.Flight simming is all about immersion (or lack of it) and the virtual cockpit is a huge part of that.Fact is PMDG and number of other devs realise that.I am certain that the VC you released has cost you customers (at least in the short term) until you improve it's appearance.Bryan.

We are certain that is the case as well. Like the lack of of fully functional FMS, or Sim/OSVersion compatibility issues, everyone has their favorite axe to grind.Apparently in this case it is the VC lovers who take exception to what we've produced. In that case, a simple pass on purchase should suffice. :( Please always remember that neither you nor anyone else is under duress when it comes to personal purchase decisions.This is an FS product and no ones life or well being is jeopordized if they do not purchase and install. :( Like it or not, quality VC work has already been released by devs who privately state that they despise VC's for any any number of valid reasons.We've already outlined that we are fully aware of what folks want and already outlined what we are currently doing about it with this package.In addition, we've made internal decisons regarding VC work in projects that are currently in the pipeline but that can be evaluated when those are released.Finally, take a look at the VC in our Twin Comanche package for a glimpse at what we consider a nicely immersive VC. Especially around dusk. :(

I had the original FS9 version and liked it alot. I hope to purchase this latest rendition soon but was wondering what is it's relative impact on FPS or better yet does this bird offer a smooth flight experience (great landing feel at a low traffic airport)? If it is not out-of-bounds for a forum question, how would it compare to the F1 Mustang in the 'smoothness' area. I own the plane but don't fly it as the fun factor is diminished due to a lack of smoothness. I'm sure that this is all subjective because of different system configurations but I do have a quick (4.2ghz) system with a high-end GPU.BTW, I had breakfast at Wisconsin Air today (KMSN) and a Citation x was on the tarmac. Wow- I didn't realize how big that bird is!jja

As always hardware, drivers, other addons, etc. effect the outcome but we've not heard any FPS complaints on descent equipment. :(

Ha Ha, we have to admit to obsession over systems and avionics ourselves. <snipped for brevity>What Bill said... :(

I wonder if anyone has ever noticed that the twin RTU4200's (Radio Tuning Units) are so realistic that they required their own 30 page manual?CX20-Primus RMU850 RII Radio System.pdf :(

We've heard recently that a certain approach into LAX can be done properly by only three FMS equipped aircraft.Two are PMDG Products and the third is the Eaglesoft CX2.0. That sort of proves our obsession with Systems and Avionics. :( Bill, likely not, since to date only one user has noted the split buss Electrical System and none the excellent APU. :(

We've heard recently that a certain approach into LAX can be done properly by only three FMS equipped aircraft.Two are PMDG Products and the third is the Eaglesoft CX2.0. That sort of proves our obsession with Systems and Avionics. :( Bill, likely not, since to date only one user has noted the split buss Electrical System and none the excellent APU. :(

"EG not invited"Well THAT didn't work, did it.

"EG not invited"Well THAT didn't work, did it.

Well, the OP does not have Mod Status here and there is no prohibition that we know of to our posting here as long as we adhere to the forum rules as set by the powers that be.Last I checked we were members in just as good standing as yourself. We stayed clear for quite awhile and still only post in response to certain postings. :(

Like it or not, quality VC work has already been released by devs who privately state that they despise VC's for any any number of valid reasons.

It does not matter what other devs express (privately or otherwise) they have a need to give customers what they want or bang go their sales, simple as that.Without a doubt the majority of simmers want a top quality VC and without that sales will suffer.By the way your Comanche is a nice machine. :( Bryan.

I'm another one who passed on it due to the VC and FSUIPC requirement. I'd prefer they didn't bother with the seats and tv's etc in the passenger cabin, and spent the effort on the VC where I'd spend the entire flight. And no, I'm not "obsessed" with VC's, I just know the difference a good one can make to my enjoyment of the sim. I don't have FSUIPC installed on my system, I don't want to have to pay for other add ons just to have my purchase work correctly - Flight1 managed to get FADEC working correctly with their excellent Mustang, without FSUIPC. I'm not slating it in any way, having bought an Eaglesoft aircraft in the past, I'm sure it is a good aircraft underneath with its systems etc, they are just my reasons, as a potential average customer, that I chose to avoid it.

I'm actually seriously impressed with some of the systems modeling in this airplane - if you ask me, systems are what should really matter in an IFR aircraft of this type. The VNAV descent mode works better than basically any other addon I've seen aside from our own. It has a vertical situation display on the MFD, which is the first time I've seen one modeled in FS. The electrical system operates with the correct dependencies and the FMS's performance calculations (fuel burn, wind adjustments and so on) appear to be spot on to me in a couple nights of putting it through it's paces.Definitely give this thing a shot guys, they've done a good job here with many things that are usually lacking in complex jet addons.Ryan

Well, the OP does not have Mod Status here and there is no prohibition that we know of to our posting here as long as we adhere to the forum rules as set by the powers that be.Last I checked we were members in just as good standing as yourself. We stayed clear for quite awhile and still only post in response to certain postings. :(

Ron,You confuse what you CAN do with what you SHOULD do. I have great respect for you and your products. I own most of them. But the OP made a request that should have honored out of respect for him and others who wanted a discussion free of developer input.

Definitely give this thing a shot guys, they've done a good job here with many things that are usually lacking in complex jet addons.

Ryan, are you flying the FS9 or FSX version?

Ron,You confuse what you CAN do with what you SHOULD do. I have great respect for you and your products. I own most of them. But the OP made a request that should have honored out of respect for him and others who wanted a discussion free of developer input.

We did stay out of it for a bit but I respectfully disagree that devs should not post at Avsim.The OP made statements concerning us then asked that we not respond.Sorry but for one to assume that devs should not respond to threads about their products is not viable.I actually saw a post the other day where another dev responded to a thread.In that case, one guy actually asked what the h*** the vendor was doing in these forums?The impression was that if he were a mod he would bar commercial devs from the forums.Sheesh. :(

It does not matter what other devs express (privately or otherwise) they have a need to give customers what they want or bang go their sales, simple as that.Without a doubt the majority of simmers want a top quality VC and without that sales will suffer.By the way your Comanche is a nice machine. :( Bryan.

Correct. And we've already stated what we are currently doing about that for this project and what internal decisons have been made regarding projects in the pipeline.Thanks for the comment on the Twin Comanche. :(

I'm actually seriously impressed with some of the systems modeling in this airplane - if you ask me, systems are what should really matter in an IFR aircraft of this type. The VNAV descent mode works better than basically any other addon I've seen aside from our own. It has a vertical situation display on the MFD, which is the first time I've seen one modeled in FS. The electrical system operates with the correct dependencies and the FMS's performance calculations (fuel burn, wind adjustments and so on) appear to be spot on to me in a couple nights of putting it through it's paces.Definitely give this thing a shot guys, they've done a good job here with many things that are usually lacking in complex jet addons.Ryan

Ryan, many thanks for recognizing the accuracy and depth of this simulation. System fidelity and depth was the primary focus when we decided to build this beauty. :(