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

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:-)

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/.

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

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.

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

>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.

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.

>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.

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

Brian, thanks for your comments. Just for clarification...it's not lack of ability holding us back but time and costs which we believe all developers and of course the sim public can relate to:-) This is offered not as an excuse but a simple explanation of the realities of developing FS aircraft.In hopes of regaining some perspective here let me offer the old quote about "Rome not being built in a day and it wasn't cheap either":-)Many of our fellow Commercial Developers have been doing this a few more years than we and have spent more than a few dollars in development costs to provide the sim public with some of the best commercial addons available!!We are simply growing to the point that we may soon stand alongside those who are "ahead of us" in so many areas. All it takes is skill, time, and money:-)

>Many of our fellow Commercial Developers have been doing this>a few more years than we and have spent more than a few>dollars in development costs to provide the sim public with>some of the best commercial addons available!!No kidding. According to Bob Randazzo, PMDG invested around 39,000 man hours just on the 737-NG product line! :(

Hey Ron.>Brian, thanks for your comments. Just for>clarification...it's not lack of ability holding us back but>time and costs which we believe all developers and of course>the sim public can relate to:-) Well, that may be, but, that's not the impression I got, from your very own forums today, but, I don't want a debate, I'll take your word for it.>This is offered not as an excuse but a simple explanation of>the realities of developing FS aircraft.But see Ron, with all due respect, they're still excuses. >In hopes of regaining some perspective here let me offer the>old quote about "Rome not being built in a day and it wasn't>cheap either":-)And I will quote "Field of Dreams", "If you build it, they will come.".>Many of our fellow Commercial Developers have been doing this>a few more years than we and have spent more than a few>dollars in development costs to provide the sim public with>some of the best commercial addons available!!>>We are simply growing to the point that we may soon stand>alongside those who are "ahead of us" in so many areas. All it>takes is skill, time, and money:-)Well, again, this may be true, but it is neither here nor there. You guys have not, as far as I can see, committed to anything. In fact, your forums emphasize the words "maybe" and "if" quite strongly IRT FMC development. To put it plainly, your postings in this thread leave me with an entirely different impression on this issue than your support forums. I'm not sure why that is. I'm not arguing against you, or ESDG, singularly, if at all. If time and money is the answer, well, it'll be up to you to make the time, and I will continue to support your products with my money.

>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.

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.We have never stated that we are a 100% fully functional airliner developer and have no plans to become that type of company.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.Our feeble attempt to explain the "realities" of developing FS aircraft should never be mistaken as an excuse. Some folks now days seem to feel that if a developer doesn't provide what "everyone want's when they want it" then they are subpar...could this be why so many freeware developers are disgusted and stop developing?? We will simply continue to provide whatever projects we have completed at a reasonable price and will continue to forge ahead at our own pace without any excuses or apology for not producing an FMC "on the spot":-)