Coolsky DC9 Classic - any news following the first patch?

[Houghton11 12]

Don't get me wrong...it's not a bad airplane release. It's quite featured, and if things get worked out...it will be a staple classic aircraft on FSX.

 

I thought about returning it, but I'm really hoping for things to get better regarding some of the issues. First and foremost I hope this beta patch may make the cockpit a tad more readable. However, we need a serious improvement in night lighting in the VC as well.

 

It's kind of discouraging to see the standard "your computer isn't able to handle this resource intensive aircraft" answer. It's quite obvious there's some legacy-clunky-FS2004 MD80 code in there that probably isn't making things any easier either. That's my real disappointment with this aircraft. I thought it was going to be a fresh start for Espen and the Coolsky gang.

 

Anyways i'm gonna try this patch this afternoon. Too bad there's no Air Canada repaint available :|.

[xplanery 250]

Yeah I hope Espen will manage to create actual fix to these problems, currently these problems with VC are experienced by all kinds of users including those with very high end computers that have no problem with 737NGX and other birds in same or even higher quality.

 

Still despite these problems I have had many really nice flights with this bird.

[Phillip Gallagher 101]

Hey FSXMAN! I appreciate that your posts seem to be generally very positive and optimistic. But, I'm just curious, because my opinion had differed from yours on some addon payware, have you ever seen an addon aircraft that you DID NOT LIKE!

[FlyGeordie 17]

/\ /\ /\ ..... let each have their opinion. I like a man who can see the positive in life. Some of us just always find stuff to moan about. I really value and enjoy 'fsxmans' posts, and find them balanced. :smile:

 

I am one of the people who has had NO problems with this plane. Well, nothing I've noticed anyway! ..... perhaps it's because I'm in the minority with a ATI card. I don't know maybe not. But this bird flies perfectly for me, so my account would be 'positive' too. @ Philip, perhaps FSXMAN is positive about addons, and maybe you're a tad over-critical. Maybe not, I don't even know you buddy! :smile: , just a thought.

[CraigyW 30]

General question to those who have addon. Are the reverse thrust buckets on the engines animated? Not seen it on any vids or on the Coolsky description of functionality.

 

Craig

[xplanery 250]

Yes they are.

[radoslav01 1]

Again, that is something you would have to figure out. NWA's former DC-9-30's did not have GPS or other modern navigation equipment and they did just fine in real life, right up to the point they were retired a couple years ago. Fact is, you are asking for something that has found it's way into very, very few (if any) DC-9-30's.

 

Speaking of NWA here's former NWA DC-9-50 with guess what???

I must say that I don't compleately dislike this plane. All I wanted to say is that there's soo much work needs to be done on that addon. I have my ways to navigate so I can live without 3d modeled FMC or GPS in virtual cockpit.

And if pay for something I have a right to say that I dislike something about the product...

[T_Fleck 36]

If you are referring to the instrument with a green screen and a bunch of buttons; it's an ACARS unit. ACARS has nothing to do with navigation.

[Paul J 349]

Great video, Radoslav! This is so like the LHS Maddog.

 

I'm one of the "hold back a day or two" guys, but intending to purchase when others reckon it's all fixed. I'm hoping that this (F1) DC-9 has the same workload, failures and procedural dependencies. I really don't want to see a "Ctrl-E" to start the engines, or start with the air doors closed - or having brakes with the hydraulics off.

[William J.S.S 173]

You sure are free to state you dislike something you buy.... but it wouldn't it make more sense if you were mad about something left out by accident? Many people here I guess just don't understand how someone can be upset with an addon over the fact that it is modeled the way it is suppose to be, and does not have an FMS when they don't.

 

On a side note, I am very displeased with PMDG that they did not add an option to Retro Fit props onto the 737......

[Paul J 349]

On a side note, I am very displeased with PMDG that they did not add an option to Retro Fit props onto the 737......

:LMAO: :LMAO: ....or a tailwheel....!! :lol:

[T_Fleck 36]

Paul, small incentive but I do have plans to paint the Air Canada livery for it (Same scheme I did for the maddog)..... If/when MCP finds the time to release the paintkit.

[Paul J 349]

Awwww... that's a mean trick to play on an Air Canada fan, Todd! But "Thank you" - I'll take you up on it, provided I get the right input here from some of the other Maddog guys!

 

(Nice to see you're still around by the way!!)

[G550flyer 1,045]

I know there was a aim for the retro era navigation. I will add that all military dc-9-30s had FMS with RNAV GPS capability. The Navy versions also had the md80 style EFIS, while the Airforce versions had only a glass EHSI. These mods came as a necessity. Airspace these days with RVSM requires non RVSM aircraft to remain below FL290. This is a fuel killer. Most experienced flyers know this situation very well. Many times in the C-141 and the DC-10-30 I was kept low after receiving my oceanic clearance on coast out and it made you very nervous. You loose range quickly when forced to fly below your planned altitude for obvious reasons. This is why the U.S. military was forced to mod our DC9s because we flew them world wide. I once lost part of my FMS system in a KC-10 while over the states and had to descend out of RVSM airspace. Luckily it's a tanker and most times you have extra fuel. I don't think it's far fetched to ask for the capability and a bit harsh to ridicule those who do. FS developers should act as real world developers do. There is a market for avionics developers to mod add on aircraft. Few have entered this arena. Just keep in mind that radio navigation in the real world is slowly going away. Much cheaper to have a GPS approach instead of maintaining navaids. By the way it takes just as much skill to navigate using complex FMS systems as it do to nav from radio station to radio station. Something as simple as loading approaches, building holds and entering ATC restrictions/clearances can be a tall task. Much easier to dail in a freq and pull up a bearing pointer.