+1.

 

Look forward to Eagle Soft's XLS. Hope your textures are upgraded, the 2.0 series aircraft are...meh. 

The reason we don't see more is there is no making you lot (me included) happy, so why waste the time LOL. heck read the OPs original statement, he isn't asking for much, just everything AND the kitchen sink in a model.

No, clearly what I'm asking for is something that has already been done...many times over by PMDG and Rob Young (only it has not yet been done in a GA jet...and that's what I'm asking for...no more or less).

 

By the way, Gulfstreams and other bizjets are better than nothing...but they're really not the class im talking about...im talking about GA mainly (meaning single pilot rated).

...(only it has not yet been done in a GA jet...and that's what I'm asking for...no more or less).

I'm curious, as you mentioned it in your OP, but what is missing from the Cessna Mustang? From all I have read, Cessna was happy with it. Why aren't you?

 

And if you want more planes that have "it", are you willing to pay for getting "it". And if the prices go up and the market shrinks, do you think the developers will give second thought to designing GA planes with "it"?

 

So again, please explain what "it" is and why "it" needs to be included.

 

 

I'm curious, as you mentioned it in your OP, but what is missing from the Cessna Mustang? From all I have read, Cessna was happy with it. Why aren't you?

 

From the folks I talk to and my own experience with the Mustang, I still fly it from time to time.  it's ok but it lacks a set of small things (some of which I work on when I get the chance).  Most of the folks do like it some and some try to like it really hard.  They talk about things like:

• Upgrading the VC.  Not by a lot...mostly making it a little less clean...some shadowing.  It does look kinda plastic and 2D in the VC compared to other airplanes.  I look at it and see that a couple of things replaced would send it a long way.  This seems like a little fix that would add a lot.
• Consistent switch handling.  Makes it a pain.  Some switches work one way, other switches work another way. (To be fair, most airplanes have some inconsistency but the Mustang is somewhat harder).  Left should always be up, right should always be down IMO...mousewheel over the knob should always work.  The Mustang doesn't play as well with hardware so mouse interaction is more important.  You should be able to flip a switch or turn a knob as mindlessly as you can do it in the real Mustang.  You shouldn't have to think...um...how does this switch/knob work?
• Probably the biggest thing is that it always lands so perfect and soundlessly no matter how poorly you land (well...how poorly *I* land).  If you land -200 fpm you should feel or hear something.  That short landing gear can only forgive so much.  The good news is that I've been working on that with Accufeel and EZDoc.  (I just got Accufeel so I'm still working on it.)  It's getting better. 
• Being able to save flight plans in the G1000.  Some people (of course) want VNAV.  It'd be nice. 
• Framerates.  I find them reasonable enough for myself but I understand it.

I+1 Gulfstream.  All you need is a systems guy and Bernt Stolle and you're on your way.

 

And a stable of lawyers to fend off the General Dynamics corporate herds when they descend on you with a bag of lawsuits. They've made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate anyone simulating their products in a PC simulation.

 

 

And a stable of lawyers to fend off the General Dynamics corporate herds when they descend on you with a bag of lawsuits. They've made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate anyone simulating their products in a PC simulation.

 

Did they say why? 

Did they say why? 

Nothing publicly, but my "guess" is they're afraid of trade secrets leaking out and losing their competitive advantage. The business aviation market is a lot smaller and more competitive than commercial aviation.

 

 

Nothing publicly, but my "guess" is they're afraid of trade secrets leaking out and losing their competitive advantage. The business aviation market is a lot smaller and more competitive than commercial aviation.

 

Well, there are others that are similar enough that would probably do just as well.  Maybe they're afraid their own pilots would use it and learn something bad.

Suspect it's something to do with intellectual property of the design. It helped sink Flight (couldn't get the rights to sell their sim model for the dollars they were willing to pay), and may/does hurt the kitset model business. Basically, it is believed that someone is making money (or not, as the case may be) on the back of what the original manufacturer spent money to develop, and they don't like it. All seems a bit silly to me...

 

Mike

And a stable of lawyers to fend off the General Dynamics corporate herds when they descend on you with a bag of lawsuits. They've made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate anyone simulating their products in a PC simulation.

 

I've always thought it funny that there are more than 2 payware Gulfstreams available for the X-Plane market... how did they get away with it?

Re: what IT is (for the Mustang)...

 

Yes, I'd agree with Gregg's points about the fixes he outlined and add a few of my own.

 

1. Yep, the VC looks like plastic...too painted and flat...needs to look more life-like with better texturing (not saying worn though).

2. Engine sounds need alot of work, especially the startup and shutdown sequences (currently theres not nearly enough jet whine and engines are too quiet, and the abrupt startup sequence is pretty poor)...also needs click sounds for gauges.

3. Needs to be brought up to date on both exterior and interior lighting (needs some additional lighting options for the vc at nite and needs to use the newer and much more realistic looking exterior lighting for nav and taxi/landing that light up the ground surfaces).

4. Would be lovely to see SafeTaxi added to the G1000 (but not as impotrant)

 

Flight1 put most of their time into the G1000 and the FDE...not saying there's anything wrong with that as they are also very important aspects...but some of these other points we've brought up DO need some serious attention as well if the simulation is to be at its best (PMDG quality).

 

oh, and yes I am more than willing to pay "extra" for higher quality products...absolutely. The real problem is not so much pricing as it is the extreme difficulty in putting together a team that has all the expertise and talent necessary to put together a more complete simulation (such as PMDG has done for the commercial jetliners). Most teams really shine in 1 or 2 areas yet lack on 1 or 2 other areas of the simulation. PMDG happens to be the 1 team that has been able to really put it all together in 1 package...but that's a very difficult thing to do.

 

It would be a great idea to see the top 3 or 4 development teams getting together for a big project like this as a salute to the MS franchise series now being over and in honor of all of us deeply passionate hobbyists. Charge $120 for it...I'll gleefully pay it,

.

 

 

1. Yep, the VC looks like plastic...too painted and flat...needs to look more life-like with better texturing (not saying worn though).

 

Ever been in an actual Mustang cockpit????  It's painted... and flat.

 

 

2. Engine sounds need alot of work, especially the startup and shutdown sequences (currently theres not nearly enough jet whine and engines are too quiet, and the abrupt startup sequence is pretty poor)...also needs click sounds for gauges.
.

While the Flight1 Mustang's engine whine might be a bit lacking as well as the overall volume level... it's really not that far off.. however, I have to ask about the 'abrupt startup sequence' statement.  The engines in a real Cessna Mustang from initial spool to idle take about 20 seconds... so, exactly what are you finding incorrect regarding the startup?

Why does the Xtreme prototype Lear package get left out of these conversations?

 

oh yeah, I know why. Like the real ones, it has no FMC so you have to actually fly it.

 

It isn't perfect, but it is pretty good.

 

regards,

Joe

 

I agree - with the optional FDE enhancement, it's a good, immersive, FPS-friendly little jet.  

Ugh... the xtreme prototypes... horrible fde (where is this optional one maybe I can try that)...  decent VC though

I need to find the optional FDE too after my last install.

 

Lee