FSX-MS All quiet on the RealAir front? Anything new in the works?

[Glynn 405]

Though I unistalled it without even one flight

HelloWhy would you spend your money on an Addon then uninstall it without even flying it?It cannot be because you do not like the graphics because there are many screenshots around so what other reason could there be?.

[nudata 10]

 

Hello All,Sorry to have been a bit quiet about future projects. We're well into development of the Lancair legacy as our next release. We don't like to shout too loudly about new projects until we are sure they are up to the standard we prefer. The Legacy will be a kind of natural progression from our Marchetti SF260 (5 successive versions over ten years). It has a similar bubble canopy, is very light weight, climbs at well over 2,000 fpm and has a very high power to weight ratio, capable of indicated speeds approaching 250 knots and similar true airspeeds in cruise at altittude. It can be thrown about the sky with ease and will be a good flyer both manually and under autopilot. We're making this a no-frills aircraft which is fun to fly, but also useful for navigation, local flying, limited aeros, and will have all the usual RealAir refinements such as spins, sideslip, inertia/buffet effects and some new innovations.After that we intend to do the aircraft that many customers have requested. Not the King Air, which is being covered by other developers, but a standard Cessna training/touring aircraft that we've always intended to do as a complete project (not just the flight model we released many years ago), but never quite got around too.All the best,Rob - RealAir

A "gold standard" C-172 Cessna is a perfect addition. I use your old air model but a complete package would great!A very popular aircraft that done to RealAir specs should help sort out some people's problems by having a reference aircraft.

[Coban 0]

HelloWhy would you spend your money on an Addon then uninstall it without even flying it?It cannot be because you do not like the graphics because there are many screenshots around so what other reason could there be?.

I am not going to flame that product, but the reason simply was graphics. I agree, there is lots of nice screenshots, even videos, but in reality it is not what you see in VC. I found it very old dated graphics, very cartonish graphics, and not even finished correctly. I use AA 8SQ, very high graphic settings, but I get lots of shimmering in VC, can't read anything. If you check those screenshots again, they all taken very very close to VC, from odd angles. So, it was biggest disappointing addon for me. I even would rather old Wilco 737 VC (not evo) to present Lancair. I jump from it to Airbux X, Katana 4x and TurbineDuke, it feels like heaven.

[MrSpeaker 122]

I wish RealAir would add those cool NGX style light effects to the DUKES, will the lancair have them?

[ryanbatc 13,025]

Lancair is covered by other developers as well. Though I unistalled it without even one flight, so when I heard Lancair, I just remember my wasted 30 euros...

Whhhaaat? The Orbx lancair is incredible! I've had no issues with it. If you get the shimmering gauges you need to check your AA levels.

[Coban 0]

Whhhaaat? The Orbx lancair is incredible! I've had no issues with it. If you get the shimmering gauges you need to check your AA levels.

I use 8SQ in nvidia inspector, 2x supersampling. I am sure its not related to my graphic settings, because I have no shimmering on all other payware planes.

[Sekstifire 10]

I agree that the OrbX Lancair is a great plane, however, its not as amazing as RealAir ones'. I cant wait for their legacy Lancair! RealAir is indeed cut above the other developers

[bliksimpie 1]

I agree that the OrbX Lancair is a great plane, however, its not as amazing as RealAir ones'. I cant wait for their legacy Lancair! RealAir is indeed cut above the other developers

Dont know about the "great". for me the ORBX lancair was just a mediocre plane and just a set of nice looking flying textures. I have flown it for about 10 hours and then uninstalled it as it was just a waste of hanger space. I cant wait to have a really proper lancair.RealAir is indeed cut above the other developers so I am a very very happy man indeed at this moment

[Bert Pieke 7,591]

My Lancair is uninstalled as well, so there are some of us for whom this aircraft just didnot work out...In my case, I did not like the way the cockpit gauges were finished. A lot of hard white/black transitionswithout antialiasing applied that grated on me.. And secondly, no fault of Orbx, I found the Lancair a lot of aircraftto handle. So, it has been retired.

[brucek 38]

A "gold standard" C-172 Cessna is a perfect addition. I use your old air model but a complete package would great!A very popular aircraft that done to RealAir specs should help sort out some people's problems by having a reference aircraft.

This sounds awesome. In all of my 200+ hours in rw flight, I have only flown the C172 (a few hours with the 152 and Cherokee) starting years ago with the older N type and later with the S and R models with the GNS 430/530 GPS. Did my instrument rating in the S model and was always impressed in how it always did what you wanted and always was consistently stable. I can't speak for many other aircraft as far as being a rw pilot, although I did my first 2-3 hours in a Cherokee before changing to the C172. But the real 172 has incredible pitch stability. Imagine you get the aircraft pitched perfectly for level flight at 90 KIAS- the tach will indicate 2200 RPM, the airspeed indicator 90 Knots. Assume you have a safety pilot so that you can fixate on the gauges. You pull the throttle back to 1800 RPM (ignoring windmill effect of the prop), and you immediately feel deceleration followed a split second later by the sensation of descent. You look up out the front window and the nose is dropping, you look back at the gauges (withinh 10 seconds of pulling the throttle back) and you see 1800 on the tach, a little less that 500 feet per minute descent, and looking at the airspeen indicator it reads very close to to the original 90 knots. You see, the aircraft was trimmed to 90 knots, which means it will immediately change attitude on power changes to preserve that airspeed.I know that sometimes FSX gets affected by controls not being set correctly. I hope that the internal workings of FSX can support something like the real performance of the 172 when done by these professionals at RA. Here's hoping :)Bruce.

[Stick 0]

My Lancair is uninstalled as well, so there are some of us for whom this aircraft just didnot work out...In my case, I did not like the way the cockpit gauges were finished. A lot of hard white/black transitionswithout antialiasing applied that grated on me.. And secondly, no fault of Orbx, I found the Lancair a lot of aircraftto handle. So, it has been retired.

I don't want to make this thread about that Lanceair but I too consider it not to reach the usual standards of the developer/publisher. I get the same mentioned bad shimmering (even at high AA/AF settings), and the text on most of the buttons is unreadable. I also find the views from the VC poor, the FDE unconvincing and in short, it just isn't a nice experience flying that plane.Anyway, cannot wait for both forthcoming RealAir projects that Rob has referred to above! ..........Wow, they will be worth waiting for :(

[Coban 0]

I don't want to make this thread about that Lanceair but I too consider it not to reach the usual standards of the developer/publisher. I get the same mentioned bad shimmering (even at high AA/AF settings), and the text on most of the buttons is unreadable. I also find the views from the VC poor, the FDE unconvincing and in short, it just isn't a nice experience flying that plane.Anyway, cannot wait for both forthcoming RealAir projects that Rob has referred to above! ..........Wow, they will be worth waiting for :(

Well said.I too don't want to make this thread about that Lancair, but seeing people who think same with me about it, quite suprised me. Because when I had mentioned this in Orbx forums, I was not very welcomed and been said that it is a great addon in every aspect. So I'd thought, the issue was not the addon, but something wrong with my system or eyes.

[Wing 32]

After that we intend to do the aircraft that many customers have requested. Not the King Air, which is being covered by other developers, but a standard Cessna training/touring aircraft that we've always intended to do as a complete project (not just the flight model we released many years ago), but never quite got around too.

YES!!!!

[SpiritFlyer 987]

I don't want to make this thread about that Lanceair but I too consider it not to reach the usual standards of the developer/publisher. I get the same mentioned bad shimmering (even at high AA/AF settings), and the text on most of the buttons is unreadable. I also find the views from the VC poor, the FDE unconvincing and in short, it just isn't a nice experience flying that plane.Anyway, cannot wait for both forthcoming RealAir projects that Rob has referred to above! ..........Wow, they will be worth waiting for :(

I am thrilled that Real Air is developing another plane. I really don't care much (well I do) about what it is, I will likely buy it, even if it is a Lancair. However, I bought the ORBX Lancair and hated it with a passion. The interior graphics were kindergarden cartoon childish as far as I was concerned. You could sure tell that Russ White did not do the work. Hated the guages, the VC views, and just about everything else about it. It was uninstalled within the hour and Adrian of The FlightSim store gave me a credit because I had been such a good customer. It was the only ORBX fish I ever threw back out of almost 40 of their products I bought. They make excellent scenery for FSX though.If some of my trusted friends here who felt the same way I did about the first Lancair, like the Real Air version, count me in too.Kind regards,

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

I don't want to make this thread about that Lanceair but I too consider it not to reach the usual standards of the developer/publisher. I get the same mentioned bad shimmering (even at high AA/AF settings), and the text on most of the buttons is unreadable. I also find the views from the VC poor, the FDE unconvincing and in short, it just isn't a nice experience flying that plane.Anyway, cannot wait for both forthcoming RealAir projects that Rob has referred to above! ..........Wow, they will be worth waiting for :(

+1 Orbx Lancair. Uninstalled due to poor VC.+1 RealAir Cessna 172. Can't wait to see how it compares to our "real" 172SP ;)