OK. So Just Flight have released a new Viscount onto the sceen.One of my major complaints about FS X is the almost total lack of "Brit Props" (My era ) 2009 had some wonderful Yorks, Argosys, DC 3 (We adopted it), VC 8, 9 and 10 (Honoury Prop) etc. So without any hesitation I bought the DC3 that they released. It was AWFUL... cartoony, sound of cessna, and default dash etc etc etc... The MAAMSIM version was many times better and 10 years older..... I REALLY wanted the DH 106 comet, but awaited the reviews having been bitten before. The reviews were not good. So I stuck with Dave Maltby's Comet which was for FS9, 4 years older FREE, and 10 times better. My question therefore is... Is the just flight Viscount better than Rick Piper's excellent old and FREE Viscount , or are the rip off artists at Just flight trying to cream us again.... P.S. Could somebody out there do a top whack VC 9 or a York specifically for FS X. ? ... PLEASE

Al did a quick review of the Comet and said it was not half bad. As good as the old classics are from the hangars of Dave Maltby, RicklPiper, et al, (and I loved all of them during their hey day) they are getting a bit long on the tooth and have no VC's (okay the 748 does), but Rick's Viscount is way old (FS2002 days!). I really want the Viscount and will prob give it a whirl this weekend. Erich

Same. Am keeping my eyes on the Just Flight site!

Most of the Just Flight aircraft you refer to are made by Aeroplane Heaven, and you should note that the Constellation and P-38 Lightning they made for JF are also the ones that come by default with Prepar3D, and if Lockheed Martin (the company which made the real Constellation and the real P-38 Lightning) think Aeroplane Heaven can make a model aircraft good enough to include in their sim, then I suspect they might be at least half decent stabs at the real thing, since I should think Lockheed know a bit about aeroplanes. You are incorrect in regards to many of the things you assert with regard to the Just Flight DC-3. It came with a former payware enhanced soundpack recorded from the real aircraft, and it did not have a default dash, it is true that it used some of the default FSX gauges - the ones for the DC-3, rather unsurprisingly, because it is a DC-3 - but the model was completely custom built. You may not be a fan of the paint in the cabin, fair enough, that's a matter of opinion, but I think it looks a lot like the DC-3 cockpits I've been in and flown. I agree, the MAAM sim DC-3 is indeed good, but it most certainly is not ten times better than the JF one, it isn't as dimensionally accurate as the JF one for a kick off, and it isn't a native FSX model either, because they are still in the process of making their FSX one. The JF DC-3 is currently discounted to 10 quid at the moment as a promo, and that'd be a tenner well spent in my opinion, after all, PC Pilot mag don't hand out their Platinum Award to just any old crappy add-on for FSX. Installing the ex-payware sound set in the JF DC-3, in case you don't believe me... With regard to their DH-106 Comet: That you can say the David Maltby DH-106 is ten times better than the JF Comet when you say you have not even bought the JF one is beyond me, how could you possibly know if you don't have it? I think it is fair to say the (excellent) David Maltby one has the edge on some of the unusual AP systems of the real aircraft compared to the JF one, but not as far as flight modeling, looks or VC goes, and you would know this if you had bought it instead of basing your opinion on somebody elses'. But even if you did base your opinion on a review, you will find some of the reviews are good, for example, my good friend and former airliner pilot, Jane Rachel Whittaker's review of the JF Comet in this month's Airliner World concludes: "The JF Comet is not without its flaws. These shortcomings are mitigated by the superb flight model which makes the 4C a real joy to fly. In that context, this aircraft really excels.'' Incidentally, I have flown on numerous Comets and Nimrods, in fact the Comet was the first airliner I ever flew on, and I live less than a mile away from the airfield where they built and test flew the Nimrod for years, so I know them pretty well and I would certainly agree with that conclusion. As far as the JF Viscount is concerned, we won't know if it is any good until the 23rd when it is released, but I've pre-ordered it, and I would not have done that if I thought it was going to be awful. I'll stick a preview of it up in this forum when I get hold of it in a few days incidentally and bash up a 'quick impressions' review if anyone wants to hold on and see that. I'd agree that a York would be nice (don't hold your breath waiting for one though), and as far as a VC-9 Vickers ''Vibrator'' is concerned, JF are apparently considering doing one, which would make sense since they are doing it's little sister, the Viscount, although you calling them rip off artists is not going to help in persuading them, especially when you haven't bought some of their stuff, thus haven't been ripped off. Al

I'll second Al's opinion. I purchased the Comet, and yes it has its drawbacks, as Al mentioned the AP could be better (more realistic - it does work OK but you need to use both the included pop up "modern" AP with the Virtual Cockpit AP)I also think the systems could use some refinement and I sure wish there were more liveries or a paint kit (I do realize it wasn't that popular in real life). On the plus side, the front cockpit and the FE and nav stations are done quite nicely, and in respect of the statements posted earlier, actually I prefer this virtual cockpit a whole lot more than DM.s photoreal version. The extrernal model seems to be spot on as well.And man is it addictive. If you want to hand fly a jet, this one is fun!! It does indeed seem to handle very well, and once you get the hang of it, it is a true joy to fly.Don't get me wrong, this is no PMDG, but it definitly is, in my opinion, better than any freeware out there.I am glad I purchased it and I have full intentions of buying the Viscount, - Roger

Is the just flight Viscount better than Rick Piper's excellent old and FREE Viscount , or are the rip off artists at Just flight trying to cream us again....

You are of course welcome to your opinion Tim, but please refrain from referring to us as 'rip off artists'. Apart from being incredibly rude and offensive, nothing could be further from the truth (the same could be said for the rest of your post - as pointed out by Al). If you are unhappy with any purchase, simply contact our orders team for a full refund. ThanksMartyn - Just Flight

@TimI have bought the JF Comet and I do own David Maltby's version. I was disappointed that the JF Comet lacked any programming with regard to simulating the systems and logic found on the flight deck, but then, so did David Maltby's. Or did Dvaid Maltby's have a better autopilot? I don't have it installed now so I can't check if it had a pitch and heading adjustment knobs. The JF Comet does not.The visual model of the JF Comet is better than David Maltby's, and the JF VC cockpit does give an impression of what the real thing might have looked like during the day. However, at night the cockpit it is lit up like a Christmas tree. While this is nice, it is eye candy. Another annoying thing is that the reverse lock lever operates the HP fuel cocks, while the HP fuel cocks are dummy switches. An obvious mistake with an easy fix. There are a few more things like this that just make the flight deck experience frustratingly unauthentic. These are easy to fix if the developer / publisher cared enough.As for the Viscount, you will find exactly the same problems there also. Lovely eye candy, but just standard FSX functionality under the hood, with a few mistakes on the flight deck like the inclusion of propellor pitch levers. What is particularly annoying with this aircraft is that in the description on the website it said that the engineers station had fully functional gauges, knobs and levers, which led me to believe, together with Al's review, that this was a reasonably accurate flight deck, perhaps on par with Captain Sims C130. And yet there is this glaring mistake with propellor pitch levers.@Martyn<edit by request from mod>I have never dealt with Just Flight before, and from the descriptions on the JF product pages of the Comet and the Viscount, I got the impression that they had fairly accurate flight decks. Ok, visually, they are good, but in terms of functionality, it's just not there.I followed a discussion on the JF forum regarding the Viscount, between one of the JF staff, and a customer who was bemoaning the missing DME. The customer was polite but a certain member of JF staff said that he was not getting into a rivet counter discussion with him, told him firmly that there would be NO DME update, and locked the thread. That's when I decided I wanted my money back for the Viscount. It's one thing to have a flight deck that contains serious errors, but something else to hear that there will not be any further development or updates to set matters right .There may be some customers who find over simplified Just Flight aircraft fun and that's fine, but there's also market of simmers out there who are after some degree of authencity and who are attracted to older type aircraft. I think the Comet and Viscount descriptions and screenshots have misled some of these people and that's why there are some dissatisfied customers.@timI don't know if you have ever tried Captain Sims C130. but that is still in my opinion the best antique turbo prop you can play with. If the Viscount's flight deck had had a similar level of detail then I would have been happy.

Hi Jason,If you have an outstanding support request, a member of our support team will contact you shortly.

but JF silently changed the description on the product page from "fully functional" to "functional". This change was done today after I sent my email last night.

The product page hasn't been changed and someone will be in contact with you regarding this.ThanksMartyn

I do apologise - I've asked AVSIM if they can open that previous post so that I can edit out the error. If they can't then I hope this apology will make good what I said.I realise now after receiving an email from Just Flight that their product description has two pages and in one page it says "functional" and another page it says "fully functional". Just Flight did not make any changes. That was just me being stupid.Once again my apologies./Jason

Thanks Jason,Much appreciated.

I'm sorry Nortmar, But if you build a new item, then I feel that when people part with there hard earned money , they should get the best that you can deliver, Sending out a product that uses other peoples work (Old Gauges) reverting to the standard default 2d cockpit, and having to issue an update to the sound package , sitting in a cockpit which gives the impression of being in a streamlined fighter jet (are those front screens at about 45 degrees?) is not my idea of a professional package. Charging people their hard earned cash for a substandard product is a rip off. you are right, I AM entitled to my opinion, as a cash paying customer , that was it. If you find this offensive then maybe you should either not be in commerce (Because people do make judgements on what they buy. Or maybe have a look at what Carenado deliver , and try to emulate their "out of the box" quality.I have been delivering commercial packages to customers as a self employed business man for many years now, and on occaision I have failed to reach the standards expected of me. when a customer has pointed this out to me, I have apologised and attempted to find a way to rectify this. telling the customer that his opinion is rude and offensive is not a tack I have taken ....

Hi Tim,There is a world of difference between giving an opinion (in a respectable, mature and constructive manner) and writing this, "or are the rip off artists at Just flight trying to cream us again..." - I think most people would agree and its very rare in the FS world to see a post written like that, hence my reason for posting.ThanksMartyn

Then Martyn, we must agree to differ.