Next plane?

[Guest kidaamnesiac]

I'll take complexity and detail and realism over eye-candy any day.I don't think I'll have too many FPS problems.And I did say I'll probably get them all over time, the MD11 just a month later, so yeah I'd enjoy my FS9 port!!!The Maddog looks like something different, a challenge. It is more complex, I am told, and simulates more systems than the Coolsky one. Is that true?

[BrunoRomano 0]

I'll take complexity and detail and realism over eye-candy any day.I don't think I'll have too many FPS problems.And I did say I'll probably get them all over time, the MD11 just a month later, so yeah I'd enjoy my FS9 port!!!The Maddog looks like something different, a challenge. It is more complex, I am told, and simulates more systems than the Coolsky one. Is that true?

After reading this: http://forums1.avsim.net/lofiversion/index.php/t239736.html I decided to go for the Leonardo Maddog. Both Coolsky and Leonardo are good airplanes, but they do serve different types of customers.It's indeed a hard choice!

[mpw8679 428]

I'll take complexity and detail and realism over eye-candy any day.I don't think I'll have too many FPS problems.And I did say I'll probably get them all over time, the MD11 just a month later, so yeah I'd enjoy my FS9 port!!!The Maddog looks like something different, a challenge. It is more complex, I am told, and simulates more systems than the Coolsky one. Is that true?

I would say that the maddog is more realistic then the Coolsky. But the Coolsky is more then realistic enough to keep u busy. I have both and I fly the Coolsky much more often. I also like the soundset of the Coolsky bird much more. The bad frames of the Maddog make it pretty much unflyable for me, and I have a pretty decent rig.

[PilotPete99 915]

I'll take complexity and detail and realism over eye-candy any day.I don't think I'll have too many FPS problems.And I did say I'll probably get them all over time, the MD11 just a month later, so yeah I'd enjoy my FS9 port!!!The Maddog looks like something different, a challenge. It is more complex, I am told, and simulates more systems than the Coolsky one. Is that true?

SinceI don't have the maddog version by Leonardo, I can't really say for certain. From what I have read over the last few months that seems to be what others have said. I do have the PMDG 747, MD-11 (my favorite of all time) and the J41, as well as the level-d, and I really don't consider the Coolsky to be that far behind those. That said, I don't really mess around with failure systems that much since I have to deal with this in the real world as a private pilot (I don't really want to ever have to find out though!). Anyway, I think the systems (FMC, etc.) are very good in the Coolsky plane, and one thing you may want to consider is that Flight 1 has a 30 day money back guarantee, so it may be worth a shot and you can always return is you are not satisfied. Pete

[Guest hmstiger]

Captain Sim products are so ridden with problems I wouldn't buy anything else they have to offer. I already bought the 727 and the 767 for FSX. They are both appauling. Nothing but visual splendor. They know about the issues and do nothing about fixing the big ones.I'd go with the PMDG 747-400 or the Jetstream 4100. Both are top of the line sims.The Level D 767 is visually lacking. Not the most detailed and the overhead is modeled in 2D. Other than that it's a great ariplane to fly.The PMDG MD-11 can't be bad but it is a predecessor to the 747.

I have the CS C130 and there is only one glaring deficiency - the flight director does not work. Otherwise, it is an excellent airplane and not at all "ridden" (riddled is perhaps the word that was intended?) with problems. I fly it a lot.

[Benjamin J 751]

Respectfully, you are a reviewer for AVSIM but don't consider it being a FS9 portover a flaw? (low FPS is a problem that portovers have though)*facepalm*

This may come as a surprise to you, but I find that an utterly miserable way of asking an otherwise normal question. Do you always ask questions in such insulting ways? You could have dropped the *facepalm*, you know...As it is, that's a consumer's view of a product, not a reviewer's, and I don't feel obliged to ALWAYS be "the reviewer" when clearly I'm not always capable of being in that role! That said, I didn't fully realize the differences between FS9 and FSX when I wrote that. In FS9 this is a very successful plane with only one annoyance: texture loading when switching to the VC causes FPS to drop to 1-2 momentarily. I don't think it spoils the fun, though, and that's what ultimately matters. My(few) flights with the Maddog in FSX, however, didn't show the considerable FPS drops people complain about, and while it was lower than the PMDG 747, it wasn't much lower either. So, I don't see how my opinion, being a reviewer's or a consumer's opinion, is far from my limited experience with the FSX version of the Maddog. In the end, I must confess the opinion I voiced earlier was mainly based on the FS9 experience I have with it. If that resulted to disappointment, I'm truly sorry.Anyway, to the original poster: Glad you chose the Maddog. It definitely is a great a plane. What I hear from the Coolsky is that it has some serious problems in the FDE, which cause the nose to rise for unknown reasons when it definitely shouldn't.

[pbenoit 0]

Here's my $.05. I have all of the software you are asking about .. and consider all of them to be simply excellent ... especially if you like all the bells whistles and details. It's when I looked at my flight log for the past 4 years, that I have flown the Maddog 2006 and now 2008 the most, many many times more than the next contender.I was in a great VA and flwe only real routes, on real schedules ... but I could choose what. For times when I wanted to fly from Singapore to London, I'd choose the 747. But long distance flying obviously is very time consuming, even on "2x" speed. If you want lots of flying ... say around Europe and the US, then Maddog is for you ... LA to Dallas is 3.5 hours or so. Boston to LaGuardia is an hour. You can look at American's and Delta's schedules and find literally thousands of city pairs. In Europe, I think SAS still has a few MDs left .. Have lost track of Alitalia, Spanair and Finnair ... but their city pair schedules were very plentiful.As I said ... all the aircraft ... the PMDGs, Level D and the CS C130 are really wonderful ... but for sheer challenge and detail, there is really nothing like the Maddog.Complex ... yes ... well documented ...VERY MUCH SO ... tutorials ... somewhere, there's even a Maddog Training Package on DVD with the same level of detail as the AOA training material for the PMDG 747 and LevelD 767.I'm sure that the Maddog will be the "underdog" in your thought process ... but if you really like flying and a great challenge, and the ability to fly thousands of realistic city-pairs ... in under three hours, many under two hours including planning/prep etc ... then MADDOG is an excellent choice.I'm sure you have enjoyed the ATR ... I have lots of hours on that baby also ... flying short and longer routes in French Polynesia ... Air Tahiti!!!! Wish you the best in your choice ... I'd buy them all ... hahahahaha, but you would spend the rest of your life trying to read all the many pages!!!Give the Maddog a try ... I'm sure you won;t ever be disappointed!!Best RegardsPaul Benoit,KOWD

[Guest kidaamnesiac]

Thanks Paul, I have indeed chosen the Maddog 2008 first.Yes, the ATR is great! I love flying in it over Tahiti X, as well as the Caribbean islands!If you have them all, could you tell me a little more about the Fokker 70/100?Thanks

This may come as a surprise to you, but I find that an utterly miserable way of asking an otherwise normal question. Do you always ask questions in such insulting ways? You could have dropped the *facepalm*, you know...As it is, that's a consumer's view of a product, not a reviewer's, and I don't feel obliged to ALWAYS be "the reviewer" when clearly I'm not always capable of being in that role! That said, I didn't fully realize the differences between FS9 and FSX when I wrote that. In FS9 this is a very successful plane with only one annoyance: texture loading when switching to the VC causes FPS to drop to 1-2 momentarily. I don't think it spoils the fun, though, and that's what ultimately matters. My(few) flights with the Maddog in FSX, however, didn't show the considerable FPS drops people complain about, and while it was lower than the PMDG 747, it wasn't much lower either. So, I don't see how my opinion, being a reviewer's or a consumer's opinion, is far from my limited experience with the FSX version of the Maddog. In the end, I must confess the opinion I voiced earlier was mainly based on the FS9 experience I have with it. If that resulted to disappointment, I'm truly sorry.Anyway, to the original poster: Glad you chose the Maddog. It definitely is a great a plane. What I hear from the Coolsky is that it has some serious problems in the FDE, which cause the nose to rise for unknown reasons when it definitely shouldn't.

I don't want anyone getting upset or offended on my thread. The whole point is to get other people's opinions, to respect them and use them ALL to make decisions. If everyone agreed on everything we'd have a boring forum, but let's do it with respect please. (This message a general message, not a comment to any one particular individual here).

[Benjamin J 751]

kidaamnesiac: The Fokker 70/100 is by all means a great simulation (in FS9, can't say too much about the FSX version). The simulation is great and the exterior model and FDE are also very good. The only problem for me is the lack of a VC. However, if you consider the lack of a VC not a problem, than you might as well get it. It flies very nicely.In Europe SAS, Alitalia, Spanair are the biggest MD-80 operators. Hell, I actually got my hands on Mega Airport Arlanda and Madrid just to fly the Maddog for Spanair and SAS from these places...

[Guest kidaamnesiac]

kidaamnesiac: The Fokker 70/100 is by all means a great simulation (in FS9, can't say too much about the FSX version). The simulation is great and the exterior model and FDE are also very good. The only problem for me is the lack of a VC. However, if you consider the lack of a VC not a problem, than you might as well get it. It flies very nicely.In Europe SAS, Alitalia, Spanair are the biggest MD-80 operators. Hell, I actually got my hands on Mega Airport Arlanda and Madrid just to fly the Maddog for Spanair and SAS from these places...

I use TrackIR, so no VC is a downer for me. Nope, I think it's definitely got to be the Maddog. Thanks!

[out 769]

I use TrackIR, so no VC is a downer for me.

Not that I'm convincing you to anything, but a VC for the little Fokker is still a promised feature to come. :( And it's a WONDERFUL addon (speaking form the FS9 perspective). Read more here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...9&hl=fokker

[Guest kidaamnesiac]

Not that I'm convincing you to anything, but a VC for the little Fokker is still a promised feature to come. :( And it's a WONDERFUL addon (speaking form the FS9 perspective). Read more here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...9&hl=fokker

It does seem in-depth, whether they release a VC or not. I don't think I'll cross this one off my list at all. One day, I'll be flying the little fokker... (had to say it, forgive me!)

[Benjamin J 751]

It is indeed a very good plane, but let's be honest: if you want a VC, wait. I bought the plane a year ago because it was promised already a long time before I bought my copy that a VC would follow soon. Wow, was I wrong! They say it's 90% finished, but without screenshots, I've a hard time believing anything they say to us at the moment.

[out 769]

I'll be flying the little fokker... (had to say it, forgive me!)

Yep, I love this American pronunciation! :(

[qnh 70]

If you want a classic jet airliner, you may consider the latest Simcheck Airbus A-300. Not much eye-candy, but it works, and developers seem to be very active and helpful on their forum.

The A300 is definitely worth the money for someone looking for a classic aircraft; and the support is second to none in my experience.