Sign in to follow this  
oqvist

Cessna Citation X: A Slight Irritation

Recommended Posts

A couple of weeks ago I bought Eaglesoft's Cessna Citation X. But only this morning did I have a couple of hours to load it up in the sim and play around with it. It is, to be sure, a beautiful model -inside and out, and the vc views are especially good. However, (and perhaps I should have rtfm before buying it) I then found to my profound irritation that the fmc is practically worthless and only there for show. It's a nice bitmap but no more, meaning it doesn't have the more important functions of an fmc. So, instead we have a cheapo Garmin GPS that you can call up with one of the simicons. This strikes me as being an enormous step backwards, given the ability -as shown by PIC 767, PSS 744, 777, PMDG 737, etc. -to now offer almost fully functional flight management systems. I personally love entering waypoints into an FMC - and then watch my flightplan come to live (leaving aside the fact that the fubard FS ATC will most likely make a hash of any flightPLANNING you might have done, preferring instead to vector you hither and yonder, until you turn off the "NAV" button in frustration and just let the autopilot fly the damn plane in the "HDG" mode), so it completely and absolutely ruins the sense of immersion I have when I have to sit in front of a "mock-up" that pretends to be an FMC.This brings me to a related point: I see that a lot of folks are "retrofitting" their Citation's with Reality XP gauges. I have to ask, why? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything on the Cessna Citation webpage that would suggest that, indeed, Cessna is offering the Citation with Jetline avionics and Garmin GPS receivers. And why would they? The "real" Citation has two wonderfully functioning FMCs, with an excellent display, it seems, of "rising runways." Slapping reality xp gauges onto a Citation panel is again a huge "immersion killer" (for me).I'm hoping that in the future bizjet simulation developers WILL include the latest avionics in their models.Ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

"Slapping reality xp gauges onto a Citation panel is again a huge "immersion killer" (for me)."Well, on that note I have to disagree. I have my C750 fitted with the JetLine4 PFD and ND, the GNS530, and the Wx500. When JetLine C is ready, I'll lose the GNS and drop in dual FMC's. IMHO, RXP avionics packages are second to none, and are an upgrade over anything currently available, package or standalone. I own every product they've released, and can't say enough about how satisfied I am with what they've done.Eaglesoft did a great job with the Honeywell set-up they designed for the C750. Unfortunately, the set-up just is not up to the standards I've become accustomed to, using RXP products. Spend some time with an RXP retrofit, and you'll have trouble looking at anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricardo,One piece of advice. Before you buy anything - do minimal amount of research to make sure it has features you are looking for. Next, look at the price - this alone will tell you quite a bit. You are not going to get these days FMS equipped aircraft for less than $40. Also look at the total download size. A complex aircraft like Citation X and with download size about 30 MB - you know it can't be top notch realism. To give you an example Flight1's ATR (twin engine turboprop with less "glass" than Citation X) is approaching 150 MB. Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2, Omega 2.7.90 (4xAA 16xAF)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been talk about implementing the FMC for a charge of course though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Michael J. on this one...I was excited about the package also, but spent about 30 minutes tracking down the function of the FMC (i.e. the free manual, forumns, ect.)Since these aircraft rarely are dispatched without a fully functioning FMC, and thus not flown that way. I too gave this package a pass. HOWEVER, I do very much respect the developers for making this and other very very nice product.I have been looking hard at the CJ series, as they appear very complete. Also, kudos for this same group to actually post enough info for us to make these kind of informed decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricardo, We state openly that the FMC is not fully functional.:-) Our aim, whenever development time permits is to offer fully functional FMCs with the appropriate PFD/MFD combinations in GDI+ for our aircraft. Whenever development time permits we plan to begin work on these projects but no time frame or costs have been determined:-) This has been stated in our support forums and we encourage you to register and login there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are those of us who "fly the jet" and those of us who watch the computer fly the jet. :) To each his own. Give me steam gauges in a geriatric jet anytime. :)The Cit X is a wonderful FS2004 package, with some concession to realism and economics.Oh, by the by, she handles really well upside down - and you don't spill a drop of the wine. :)Best,Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This has been stated in our support forums and we encourage>you to register and login there.Hmm....I've been waiting for a confirmation e-mail from you guys forever.I just recently tried again, nothing yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Well, there are those of us who "fly the jet" and those of us>who watch the computer fly the jet. :) To each his own. Give>me steam gauges in a geriatric jet anytime. :)I agree, and nothing is more important to handflying than uber-smooth gauges. Watch the computer fly it my arse....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a GA pilot, until quite recently (when I was trying to prepare for my two hours in the United 777 sim at the Avsim conference) I knew very very little about FMCs, other than a vague impression about a system that integrates various nav sources and does flight planning. In that blissful ignorance, I have spent several very pleasurable hours in the Eaglesoft Citation X, and I am very impressed with the PFD/ND/etc. displays in the airplane - and I own Jetline4 and several other RXP products (and even a couple Project Magenta products) so I know how good it can get.Remember that there are several levels of simmers, from the folks that want to see what happens when they crash into things to those with their very own $30,000 home cockpits. I fall somewhere in between; I'm pretty much of a stickler for accuracy as much as can be possible in FS2004, but I still find this to be one of the more enjoyable aircraft to hand-fly and also do long trips in (I flew it to Hawaii one day, although FS crashed when I was less than 100 miles from Hilo (*@#$!!!!).To be sure it'd be nice to have a 100% accurate FMC in the CX, but it's still a nice airplane in so many other respects. My main beef is that I can't seem to get the gal in back to give me her phone number.Dave Blevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>My main beef is that I can't seem to get the gal in back to give>me her phone number.>>Dave Blevins(whiper) I don't think she likes men (/whisper)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I await an FMC either from Eaglesoft or Reality XP, I have been using the FMC function that comes with FSNav. It works good. I have found the Citation X (while a CPU resource hog for some reason on my computer) to have the best flight dynamics out there. She is a pure joy to hand fly with my Jetliner Yoke/Throttle quad setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, email confirmation is no longer needed....if you've registered just simply login and have fun.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CJ series includes the same FMC functionality as the CX....just so there is no confusion:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Brian, email confirmation is no longer needed....if you've>registered just simply login and have fun.:-)DOH !Thanks. :-shy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bill, and Bill, Well, ya know, first off, I guess its' good that I stopped flying the big stuff with the 727's, cause, I sure do like to fly the aircraft, and not just be along for the ride. Seems in this day and age, I just wouldn't get along in commericial traffic as I never was just a button pusher.Secondly, perhaps I'm smarter than the average bear, but I was full aware that the X did not have a fuly functional FMC when I bought it, and that's just fine with me. Wouldn't use the thing for much anyways, again, I like to fly the aircraft.Thanks for a nice aircraft,Best to all, Clay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do know a bizjet pilot who rarely uses the FMC in his real world flights.....reason...."I still like to fly the airplane"!!Eveyone has his own tastes and flightsimming is no different....we simply cannot produce a full FMC/PFD/MFD to satisfy those who want such a package without development time and recouping the costs involved. Our solution will be to make such a package available as a seperate customized addon for our aircraft with costs and time frames yet to be determined:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on Eaglesoft's flight dynamics. I only have the Citation II, but have flown little else in months. Handling is superb, and a great match-up for the CH yoke-pedal combo. I enjoy flying with both my Reality XP Jetline 2 gauges, and also the stock gauges. Will be even better when that CH throttle quadrant gets here. I, too, am waiting for a stand-alone FMC, though. Just for fun. Mentioned in another thread, but this may be promising: http://fmc.scumari.nl/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'm a bit puzzled about some of the things I read. I mean, we have folks who can't be bothered to read the flight ops manual enough to know how to properly configure the a/c to avoid "Master Warning" lights and alarms......who insist they need a fully operational FMC...So, how would they learn to program it, given their demonstrated lack of willingness to read a POH? :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big roger on that, Bill!Just for everyone's information, I had the pleasure to right seat a 'real', (real means real world actual aircraft), Citation X about 6 months ago.My impressions of Eaglesoft's version is that it is pretty darn close to how the real aircraft actualy flies. I know Flight Sim's limitations, I beta for a bunch of different payware developers and the reason most of them ask me to beta for them is that I have had the pleasure of flying a great quanity of aircraft in my liftime.(don't ask, but I'm old!)Saying that, I don't mince words with developers, (those who remember my posts on the CS 727 will know that) on the flight model. It either flies right or it doesn't. Now, I'm not sure how many of you out there have actualy flown an X, but if you have, then you know that Eaglesofts version is pretty spot on!It was not developed to be a procedural sim, but it comes pretty close considering that if you just want to boot it up and fly, you can also do that also. And looking at all the gingerbread the aircraft has to offer, and the different models, from light to deluxe, I happen to think it's a real bargin.Properly functioning FMC or not, (and I knew it only did certain things when I bought it, because I made a point to read the literature about it), it works for me . . . personally, I'd rather fly the aircraft than push buttons on an FMC and let the computer fly it anyways.Bill, you just keep on makin them and I'll keep on buying them . . .I like your stuff! Just my .06 cents worth, (inflation, ya know), from one who has really flown an X.Best to all,Clayton T.Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"Sundance Quarter Horses " . . . a horse is a horse, of course, of course . . ." Mr. Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaming/Eaglesoft wrote:>You know, I'm a bit puzzled about some of the things I read. >I mean, we have folks who can't be bothered to read the flight>ops manual enough to know how to properly configure the a/c to>avoid "Master Warning" lights and alarms...>>...who insist they need a fully operational FMC...>>So, how would they learn to program it, given their>demonstrated lack of willingness to read a POH? :-rollI find it interesting to see members of the Eaglesoft team like Bill Leaming deriding Eaglesoft customers in a public forum. More unhappily, it seems to be an attempt to extrapolate dismay over perceived "user laziness" on the part of a few to anyone who might not buy the company line that "an advanced bizjet without an FMC is really quite reasonable." It is not reasonable.I have a lot of time in r/w business jets, and I must say that simulating a jet in the class of a C-X without providing any FMS lateral nav capability is just underwhelming. Granted that a "full-feature" FMS (that means VNAV, holding, predictive fuel planning etc) might be prohibitive, I do not think it too much to ask that a model of an advanced bizjet include at least a working lat nav capability. I know lots of pilots that opt for speed/mach hold rather than VNAV, but I know none who opt to use station-to-station nav in lieu of FMS lateral guidance. And station-to-station navigation doesn't work at all in oceanic airspace...again a bad choice for a jet with intercontinental range. Bottom line, this was never an all-or-nothing choice. The complete lack of an RNAV capability is a HUGE shortcoming.There seems to be a resurgence of "real men only hand-fly" machismo on this thread...based on a basic misunderstanding that FMC guidance somehow mandates automated control of the airplane. There's litte fundamental difference between hand-flying with FMC guidance and hand-flying with VHF Nav guidance, except where the nav source switch points.Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me that developers can stay in business while displaying open contempt for the customers that patronize them. Seeing this sort of unbusinesslike behavior further reinforces my decision to avoid Eaglesoft products as the right call. There are plenty of others out there...the PMDGs of the world...that don't openly impugn the nature of the people that pay their bills.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have a lot of time in r/w business jets, and I must say that simulating a jet in the class of a C-X without providing any FMS lateral nav capability is just underwhelming. Granted that a "full-feature" FMS (that means VNAV, holding, predictive fuel planning etc) might be prohibitive, I do not think it too much to ask that a model of an advanced bizjet include at least a working lat nav capability. I know lots of pilots that opt for VNAV and speed/mach hold rather than VNAV, but I know none who opt to use station-to-station nav in lieu of FMS lateral guidance. And station-to-station navigation doesn't work at all in oceanic airspace...again a bad choice for a jet with intercontinental range. Bottom line, this was never an all-or-nothing choice. The complete lack of an RNAV capability is a HUGE shortcoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bob.I guess I gave up my frustrations over this type of thing a long time ago. There are very few developers out there, that don't have an endless stream of excuses as to why this or that can't be done. Be it TCAS, an FMC, whatever. See the above post.There are those few companies, that will DO, not try, but DO what their customers ask, and we know who those companies are. And who they aren't.I will say in ES's defense, that they have always been clear and forthright about the abilities of the included FMC, and I also understood this in advance. The package itself, is quite nice. Great FDE(IMHO), beautiful model, and solid panel graphics. It was my intention from the start to retrofit with RealityXP, and I am more than happy with the final result. You may argue that I shouldn't have to do that, but, if it is beyond their abilities right now to deliver a more advanced package, getting frustrated, or NOT supporting them in their efforts, will not help them move any closer to that end.I do believe thay are doing all they can to deliver the best product that they can. If I had any idea that this was not the case, I would have no qualms saying so. It's all a matter of value, and for me it's been worth it.One point I am in complete agreement with you on, is Mr. Learning's post. I've read similar childishness from him in the RXP forums, where someone *GASP* was unhappy with the C750's avionics, and Mr. Learning felt the need to "correct" them, this in another developer's forum, mind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I find it interesting to see members of the Eaglesoft team>like Bill Leaming deriding Eaglesoft customers in a public>forum. Bob, what I stated was my personal observation, and not as a representative of Eaglesoft DG. I simply forgot to turn off my signature.I believe that I am entitiled to express my thoughts if I so choose. I won't deny you that right; so kindly allow me mine.With all your real world experience, would you jump into a totally unfamiliar a/c and attempt to fly without first consulting the POH? I cannot believe that you would, so how then does can you so casually dismiss my my observation?It was not intended to be demeaning or condescending whatsoever; it is indeed nothing more than plain vanilla common sense, a quality that seems all too frequently absent at times.BillThe above is a "Personal Opinion" and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eaglesoft Development Group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Bob, (Scott)I see your point completely, and in the real world, for a current state of the art biz-jet, your are quite correct. And, if the X by Eaglesoft had been intended (I'm not speaking for them, but I think I know what that answer is), this offering to be a 'full' operational sim, such as the PMDG 737, it then should have had a completely operational FMC . . . in this instance, it was NOT intended to be that. It was intended to be, as I have described it before, a fun aircraft to fly, which flies pretty spot on, and one which you can 'somewhat' do it by the numbers. As for the 'macho, hand flying' thing, no one was intending that to come across as that . . . some of us 'older' guys just don't like FMC's because we never had the chance to 'have' to use them, hence we fly by outdated AP's and occasionally have to look at charts .In today's arena of biz-jet aviation, certainly an FMC would be sorely missed by any current pilot . . . however, for myself, I would still rather fly the aircraft, rather than program a computer to fly it for me . . . that's just me. And, there is still plenty of 'flying' left to be done when the FMC is not 'online' or if the electronic genius dies a horrible death by voltage overload or some other computer glitch problem. As that does happen occasionally. Anyone who flies a Gulf IV or V has to be a most experienced pilot.Lastly, I feel this is a whole new generation of aviation . . . time marches on and that's why you younger guys are doing it today and us older guys are probably just wishing we still were.No disrespect was intended, espicially for a 'Gulf' driver, as that is quite a bird to say the least.Best to you, yours and your wonderful aircraftClay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this