This is to let members of this forum know that Mike Stone has on his site for downloading a New G-Max Gulfstream V. It looks and flys beautifully. Thank you, MikeRobert

is there a VC??

Thanks Robert:That's great news with or without a VC IMHO.Forgive my asking, but do you have the link handy?Thanks:RTH

Here http://www.pmstone.com/

To answer Alex Epstein: No VC. Just a basic 2d panel to get you started. Also, Mike apparently used the 737 aircraft files as the base model. In doing this, he didn't change the description in the aircraft.cfg file. So, the description and performance data will refer to the 737. However, you can get the description and performance data from Airliners.net, and insert it into the aircraft.cfg file. As for the panel and sound file, I used the sound and panel by Mario Coelho. Available from Flightsim.com (Inter_g5.zip). It includes all sides and cabin views. It also could be available here at Avsim.

Thanks Jim:My old link didn't work any more.Downloaded and installed my old panel from the factory livery. Flys great and everything seems to work.Thanks again for the headsup and link.RTH

I can't touch it if there's no VC and no realistic panel with side views, the Gulfstream is too beautiful of a bird to accept that these days. I liked the FS2k2 version that was done a year ago. It contained a nice panel, VC, and cabin. To bad the author didn't update the FDE to FS2k4 standards...Thanks for the effort Mike Stone... I've just been a little spoiled with all these great FS2k4 models (freeware and payware). I'm looking forward to Eaglesoft taking a stab at the Gulfstream... Can you just imagine how awesome that would be... :-eek :-jumpy

I generally dont fly Mikes airplanes because he leaves out much of the detail I prefer (personal choice here.). However, I've been wanting a good gulfstream for AI. Im wondering if this is it. Since Mike has apparently used the 737 FDE, then this may be good for AI use. (I personally think this what the majority of mikes stuff is good for. I've been using his C-130's this way with great satisfaction.)Eric

Thanks for the tip!People can say what they want about Mike's aircraft, but until they can lay claim to 47 original aircraft creations by themselves...Can't wait to get my hands on it.Tim13

I don't think people are bad mouthing Mike's work (at least not on this thread). People are just stating the obvious, they have gotten used to packages that offer more. One even said he would use Mike's work as AI. I don't think that's bad mouthing... I for one feel the days of planes without decent panels and/or sounds is over. If you don't have a decent 2D panel with your model, it should at least have a functioning VC. Using a panel with no side views is old as well... Work that only contains the visual aircraft should be used as AI these days. There's nothing wrong with this. If someone has a nice visual model like the Gulfstream mentioned here, there are many options for users depending on what's out there on the web... We're in a different age. Tim if you want to fly this plane then so be it, that's your choice. But to slam the rest of us for acknowledging times have changed. I for one appreciate someone giving something of their own free time to this hobby. Using good visual model as AI is no different that using the same model to fly with. It's all up to the individual.I prefer the complete package and will gladly pay for it. It's a lot of work so may hat is off to freeware developers like Project Mach2 and the guys who brought us the freeware Commander and the Maule (just to name a few). Anything less than that is good AI and I'm fine with that.... :-beerchug

I too find it a bit discouraging seeing the attitude of some folks around here. Now, if the aircraft doesn't include full VC, side views, wing views, and a flight attendant standing in the open doorway of the aircraft, people are ready to write off the entire work.Those of us who remember FS98 remember that more often than not, we had to download custom panels for our freeware models. Aircraft themselves generally used the closest default panel available, or a generic 3 or 4 engine panel.If you wanted a separate panel, it was the "downloaders" responsibility either to find one, or make one himself. And the aircraft designer was neither obliged, nor expected, to provide it himself.Now, if the aircraft doesn't include an APU parked behind the aircraft when the engines are off, the aircraft is somehow considered "incomplete". It's a shame that this attitude is becoming more and more prevelant in our communityAnd we wonder why freeware authors are washing their hands of this community in record numbers...My hearty thanks goes to all freeware developers for the hard work that you do. And since the only "payment" you guys require is a Bravo Zulu once in awhile, and a promise not to sell or pirate your stuff, I commend your noble efforts even more. You have definitely made my sim environment a much richer place thanks to your hard work.

I have to agree with Dillon for once. While Mike is prolific and does good work, the lack of a VC keeps his work out of my hanger.Look at Milton and teams work, both options, VC and non, the VC version is downloaded more, like 3 to 1.I've tried a few of Mike's aircraft as AI, but still to heavy.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/PBTMCa.jpgCalVirAir International VACougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviation[link:www.cgrmtnhelos.com]Cougar Mountain Helicopters

Will,I agree with you about public attitude--people who find fault w/freeware should make their own choices vs. whether to download it, but in most instances they should keep the reasons for those choices (when in the negative) to themselves rather than drag someone through the wringer in these forums. I can say that most people here have no idea how much time a V/C can add to development. It is the most intricate and detailed part of building an aircraft, IMHO. Mike would rather release visual models for those who find pleasure in such things. He concentrates on that, and leaves it to the community to choose among the dozens of fine 2-d panels out there. I think that's great, as he can produce more visual work where his talent is. The only thing absent from Mike's models that I wish was there are dynamic wing/engine views. They take seconds to do--it's as simple as copying the parts which are already there. Mike has told me he thinks they detract from fps and that "pilots" can't see the wings anyway. I disagree with both opinions, but Mike is the artist. As such, he has a right to "Artistic" license. He has enough fans that those dissin' him about no V/C don't matter much to him. And V/C's do hit fps, which a concern of Mike's. Despite no wing views, I have several of his aircraft. My favorite is his Beech Starship--sheer beauty. His Gulfstream is really nice too, and I thank the author of the thread for bringing it to our attention.Anyway--with 120+ Gig hard drives, if people find fault with freeware, try to keep it to yourselves. If you want to remove his work to save a precious meg, so be it, but keep it to yourselves. Sure there are exceptions. Freeware authors who rip off work, or freeware authors who spend fifteen minutes whipping up a project just to get their name in "lights", bundling together a 20 Meg download which is 1 pct their work, and 99 pct. borrowed from others. Such alerts are appreciated in these forums--especially for us dial-up users. But beyond that, let's give freeware authors like Mike who have great 3-d modelling skill credit for what they do, and ignore what they don't do.-JohnEdit: I forgot the most important point--comparing one author's work to another is really offensive, IMHO. Especially where freeware is concerned, some authors simply have more time than others to do a project. Please factor in what isn't known when comparing freeware. We don't know what these authors do outside of the hobby. Some are kids living at home--others are very self sufficient, and still otherrs work 24x7 jobs and create freeware when they can.

Right on, JohnCi! I remember someone complaining to Mike that the wheels weren't dirty enough on one of his aircraft.Also, there are a lot of people who could care less about VC's.

Times haven't changed, expectations have. But that doesn't make it right. In the past, a person could produce a fine flying model, with moving parts (within FS98) limitations, and a relatively high poly count, and it would be hailed as a great model. The fact that the plane didn't come with a panel was accepted as fact. If you wanted a good panel, you shopped around for a "panel" designer who's work specialized in panel design.But now, if the freeware author doesn't offer up a VC or at least a panel with "AUTHENTIC" 2d panel with side views, the plane is either relagated to AI use, or is dismissed out of hand.In FS98 days, a good plane usually was made up of freeware components that were provided by a handful of people. 1 guy usually did the model, 1 guy usually provided the repaint, 1 or two guys did the panel, (and many times a gauge guy would make custom gauges), and another guy would add authentic sounds.As downloaders, we were expected to find these parts and marry them ourselves. We never complained that Richard Probst's panels didn't include a bird, because Richard was a panel guy. We never expected Brian Quayle to provide a panel, because he was a model guy. Yet today, if we don't get the whole shibang into one zip file, the package is lacking or religated to AI duty. I for one, would rather see Mike Stone do what he does best, models and flight dynamics, be grateful for the work he has done, and spend 20 min looking for an acceptable panel, then to just throw out all that work because Mike just doesn't happen to be a panel guy.After all, as I still remember, AVSIM still has download sections for panels and gauges seperate from airplanes and repaints.