Cessna Citation X: A Slight Irritation

[n4gix 4,961]

>>No kidding. According to Bob Randazzo, PMDG invested>around>>39,000 man hours just on the 737-NG product line! :( >>And in doing so, became the defacto standard all others are>judged by.While on one level that is certainly true, keep in mind please that the potential market for bizjets is not nearly as large as that for 'heavies.'Let's admit some basic economic realities here: according to the AVSIM 2004 Survey, 44% of the simmers surveyed are 'heavy/midsize drivers,' and have little or no interest in light GA or bizjets. In the vast panoply of the flightsim world, bizjets comprise a very small niche market, so amortizing development costs for projects has to be a prime factor in any prudential business decisions made by any company.From the AVSIM Survey, "small passenger jets" account for only 7.1% of the marketplace. It's not difficult to determine where the greatest potential for return on investment is likely to occur, when the potential market is nearly sixteen times as large. That is the reality that any business person must face, when determining how to best allocate human resources. It is my hope - again, speaking only for myself - that continued exposure will help drive the potential market growth, and as that growth occurs, so too can the level of detail and product development.BillThe above is the opinion of myself, and does not necessarily reflect that of Eaglesoft Development Group

[Ricardo41 5,959]

>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? :-rollAre you for real? I asked an honest question about turning of a "no take off" warning; answered the question myself quickly by, yes, reading the POH - so what exactly is your point?FYI, I've been using PSS's 744,777, A340, A320, PIC 767, PMDG's 737 series - I do know how to program an FMC (within the limitations of a simulator).As for the argument that using an FMC implies some kind of sissy flying ("the computer now flies the airplane"), this is such an incompetent attitude, it's not even worthy of consideration.ricardo

[Brian Doney 127]

>We admire the accomplishments of PMDG and many others but to>compare Eaglesoft Development Group to PMDG or any other>airliner developer is to compare apples and oranges.I didn't, Bill did.>We have never stated that we are a 100% fully functional>airliner developer and have no plans to become that type of>company.Keep the contradictions rolling. I knew I'd bait the truth out eventually.>What we do accomplish within our own time frame and costs>structure is to provide unique, interesting, and fun aircraft>and we make no apology or excuse to anyone here.Apparently, the definition of the word excuse is not commonly known. To clarify even more for you, your last post is the first post that you haven't used one, in this thread.>Our feeble attempt to excuse ourselves form todays high standards of>developing FS aircraft should never be mistaken as anything more than>just that.Fixed that for you.>We will simply provide whatever projects we have completed at>a reasonable price and will continue to forge ahead. Woe is the life of an FS developer. Well, best of luck.

[n4gix 4,961]

Ricardo,I mentioned no names, but was thinking out loud in general terms, based on thousands of posts from a broad spectrum of simmers over the last few years.Please forgive my poor communications skills, as I certainly meant no disrespect or slight to you personally.As for your last comment; that is not my argument, and never has been.Fr. Bill

[Ricardo41 5,959]

Bill:let's bury the hatchet right here and chalk it up to bad communication skills on either side: I DID mention that I very much like the Citation: it's just that dot on the i that's missing (for me). And I certainly understand the economic reality of a limited market for such a project.In fact, I had a great flight this afternoon in the Citation from Calgary to KJFK -great, that is, until the ATC vectored me into the ground. Sincerely,Ricardo

[Guest Gdavis101]

I agree with you Bill, I have a hard time just sitting and watching the computer fly the plane.

[N400QW 205]

>Keep the contradictions rolling. I knew I'd bait the truth out eventually.

[n4gix 4,961]

>In fact, I had a great flight this afternoon in the Citation>from Calgary to KJFK -great, that is, until the ATC vectored>me into the ground. Ricardo, thank you very much for accepting my olive branch... :)As you've no doubt discovered by now, the only thing you cannot do at the present time is to create a flightplan directly. All other functions are present.Fr. Bill

[Brian Doney 127]

>Pretty immature attitude you display Brian....we must have>made your day huh:-)Quite the contrary, actually. I had hoped that ESDG would eventually commit to bringing their catalogue up to snuff, by today's standards. I now know, from your own words, that you do not intend to do so. If you had simply stated, what ESDG's intentions are, as opposed to the maybe's and if's, and the sad tale difficulty, the discussion would've been over right then. Instead, you blew smoke. I don't like that.

[Brian Doney 127]

>As you've no doubt discovered by now, the only thing you>cannot do at the present time is to create a flightplan>directly. All other functions are present.>>Fr. BillWould you like an opportunity to clarify that statement, or shall I share the functions of the Primus 2000 FMC that are NOT present in this package ?

[N400QW 205]

It may interest you to know that all of our plans have some flexibility built into them for the afforementioned reasons.When a commitment is made there will be an announcement just as we have always done.It may also interest you to know that your opinion and "what you like" is not what keeps the world spinning around on it's axis:-)

[Brian Doney 127]

>It may interest you to know that all of our plans have some>flexibility built into them for the afforementioned reasons.>>When a commitment is made there will be an announcement just>as we have always done.OK, so first an FMC wasn't neccessary, then we change our tune to "maybe", then we have no intentions of such, and now we're back to maybe.Boy, you are hard to keep up with.>It may also interest you to know that your opinion and "what>you like" is not what keeps the world spinning around on it's>axis:-)I agree, and I'll add, thank goodness the earth's rotation doesn't depend on getting a straight answer from you.Ironically, this thread would probably be on page 3 if you and Bill had kept out of it.

[Brian Doney 127]

>While on one level that is certainly true, keep in mind please>that the potential market for bizjets is not nearly as large>as that for 'heavies.'>>Let's admit some basic economic realities here: according to>the AVSIM 2004 Survey, 44% of the simmers surveyed are>'heavy/midsize drivers,' and have little or no interest in>light GA or bizjets. In the vast panoply of the flightsim>world, bizjets comprise a very small niche market, so>amortizing development costs for projects has to be a prime>factor in any prudential business decisions made by any>company.>>From the AVSIM Survey, "small passenger jets" account for only>7.1% of the marketplace. It's not difficult to determine>where the greatest potential for return on investment is>likely to occur, when the potential market is nearly>sixteen times as large. >>That is the reality that any business person must face, when>determining how to best allocate human resources. It is my>hope - again, speaking only for myself - that continued>exposure will help drive the potential market growth, and as>that growth occurs, so too can the level of detail and product>development.Bill,For the AVSIM survey, I can pretty much gurantee, that every bit of that 44% own the NG.The majority follow quality, not type. Sure we all have our favorite aircraft, and some would not touch a "heavy" over a GA no matter how complete, but the point is still valid.Real-world, I *hate* the 737, but I enjoy the complexity of the PMDG product enough to enjoy flying it in the sim.Look, you have to decide for yourselves what you want to do. That's none of my business. What I take offense with, is how the story changes depending on the situation.In your own forums, you say you wouldn't know where to begin with an FMC. Ron states that's not the case, it's really time and money. Then he says there are no intentions, etc...Whatever the real reason is, FINE!, it's your call, just don't BS about it.

[Bob Scott 7,756]

Ron Hamilton wrote:>Bob, glad to hear of your vast real world experience. I'm very>impressed...it should first be noted that Bill Leamings>opinions are his own not those of Eaglesoft Development Group.>Last we heard people could express opinions in these forums>including yourself.Yes absolutely. But when Bill writes above a signature line that identifies himself as an Eaglesoft developer, as we know he is, then it is quite reasonable for us to attribute his comments to the company as well as himself. I see further up the thread he has acknowledged the same. That now remains an issue between you and him.That said, I still find the idea of a very publicly known member of your development team openly deriding your customer base...even in his rightful capacity as a private individual...to be harmful to your business image. Again, an issue for the two of you...but when Bill jumps into the fray on an Eaglesoft-related issue...sig line or no, we see him as an Eaglesoft guy. It's going to rub off on your company regardless. When Bill disses some of your customers as too lazy to get the jet started properly, then by association you do too. Sorry, that's reality. I have no interest is denying Bill a free hand to speak his mind here. You, OTOH, very well could.>Without beating a dead horse here...let me refer you to the>earlier explanation of Eaglesoft Development Group FMC issue.>>For time and costs consideration all of our aircraft were>released without fully functional FMCs and we are quite open>about the fact that when produced correctly, ie with GDI+>PFD/MFD/FMC as a solution for those who desire them they will>be made available. Costs and time frame to be determined.>>In our studies we found that we should not withold the jets>from the market just because some one wants a fully functional>FMC.>Again, you paint this design decision as an all-or-nothing choice, where it would take too long, cost too much, delay release etc etc to implement a full FMC capability. My opinion is that some option short of "full-function" which would at least allow lateral nav would have been a much better choice. And one more small point...although I agree that you openly acknowledge that the C-X FMC is not fully functional on your website, the true extent of the FMC's limitations is not readily apparent without a lot of research.At any rate, if you are seeing success with the product, I'm happy for you. Wherever there is a market for partially complete business jet add-ons, then you guys are well positioned for it. Any discussion here about your configuration choices is in the realm of consumer education...it provides potential consumers a more complete body of knowledge with which to make their choices...with their wallets as you pointed out. You are certainly free to make the design calls...as we are free to assess them as customers and/or potential customers. I think the C-X without lat nav has a giant gaping hole in its capabilities that isn't in keeping with the state of the art in add-ons today at this price point. It's like a nice steak dinner served with no knife. I can certainly pick it up off the plate and eat it, and it'll taste just as good, but every time I tear off a bite I'll know I'm missing something I fundamentally need to make the experience complete.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

[Bob Scott 7,756]

Hi Clay; On the FMC issue, my critique is that there were/are FMC options short of a fully functional FMC. When one wants to fly the plane from Westchester, NY to Nice, France it's pretty hard to do with dual VORs. Sure, you can use the default MSFS GPS, but the first time a VATSIM controller changes your routing you're hosed. I harbor no ill regard for hand-flying...or for those who like to hand fly a lot. An FMS-equipped jet, even one as sophisticated as the G-V, can be hand flown as much as the pilot (or the paying passengers) likes...or not. With an FMS, it's a choice...you can program the automation and have it fly the plane, or you can program the FMS and fly the plane yourself, with the FMS pointing the way instead of a VOR needle. I only bring the subject up because I've seen several similar discussions ensue where shortfalls in FMS or automation capabilities were summarily dismissed as unimportant because "real pilots" don't need 'em anyway. Real pilots have to be able to use both these days. I didn't take offense or perceive disrespect at all in your prevous post. I was put off at Bill's characterization of Eaglesoft customers as too lazy to get the jet started properly, much less use an FMS...if that indignation bled over into my comments on the rest, it was certainly not intended that way. BTW, I'm not sure where the line between "us younger" and "you older" guys is drawn, but I feel certain I'm a lot closer to it than I'd like. :-) I can't very well surmise your age from the fact that you drove Buffs, since those jets have been in continuous service for almost 60 years now!CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC