FSX-MS Real Air Duke v2.0 Released

[Mephic 129]

Joined the club  

 

 

 

[zmak 331]

Froogle Pete does an excellent you tube presentation on the V2, well worth a look

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XflrsmGNLQ

[Hangman 10]

But to suggest that a good reason for not buying it is because RealAir didn't build a better GPS from scratch is a bit ridiculous, and the same as saying that almost every addon out there isn't worth buying.   

 

I'm staggered that a matter of personal opinion is being called ridiculous. I don't buy many aircraft add ons because I'm only interested in complete simulations. My money, my choice.

 

By the way, the default GPS is no good for unplanned situations. I fly on VATSIM and unfortunately I need to have the same capabilities in front of my as the real aircraft to fit into the simulation environment I enjoy best of all - reroutes are common and I would want to reprogram whilst in the air.

 

That's my specification... It's just like buying a car. You choose the one which fits your own personal lifestyle choices and requirements.

 

I may call your Range Rover complete rubbish whilst I rate my BMW M5 with 10 stars out of 10, but in reality it depends what you want it for that determines your opinion of how good it is. You may be doing a lot of off road driving and I may want mine for track days.

 

Not sure why I should have to defend my opinion, anyway. Unless of course you aspire to a regime where you are only allowed an opinion that conforms to what you think, and no others are allowed.

 

I don't deny it's a good add-on, it just doesn't tick my boxes....... all there is to it really.

[agood 12]

I understand where you're coming from; I was thinking among the same lines recently. The Dukes are brilliant, I especially love the Turbine version for its speed and ease of handling. But it really would gain with a GPS unit that's fit for more automated IFR flying.

 

I also understand your feelings about the Reality XP units: I also think they are overpriced for a product that apparently has been abandoned, be it as good as it may - I might be prepared to spend half the money, but this is way too much. Yes you can use them in many planes - but that also goes for scenery for example. Yes the market is small - no wonder with that price point, and as I said, that kind of money might be considered for a product with active support backed by its developer and some evolution going on, but not like this. They could at least have a sale every now and then, just sayin'...

That part of the market is in sore need of competition, let's see whether Mindstar can get their act together, and maybe even make integration of their units simpler e.g. by offering 3D models to integrate or something - at least that's what I would do if I wanted to sell a unit in this business.

 

At the moment I solved the problem for myself by getting the Flight1 King Air with the G1000 - a brilliant plane as well, the big brother of the Turbine Duke - and the G1000 is pretty well done, offering approaches and departures even, updatable with Navigraph data. The downside is, the G1000 is pretty heavy on fps and memory, and for me the KingAir is on the upper limit of size and complexity, as planes go - I'm a GA guy. There also is a Flight1 T182T with the G1000, but you need a lot more patience when you're going somewhere in that one :-)

 

So... A good, more affordable GNS530/430 combo, or even a G1000 (actually, a G600) coupled with the Turbine Duke, that would tick all of my boxes as well. As things stand I'll be getting a lot of time on both members of the Beechcraft family in the coming months :-)

 

 

EDIT: I've just read that Mindstar *have* gotten their act together, the 530/430 combo is available now. And for a price point that is realistic. I'm excited... Now we just need VC integration for their Garmin suite for the 'important' GA planes out there :-)

[ryanbatc 12,857]

It can be difficult to tell just by reading a forum what people really mean. IMHO as another guy reading your post (Hangman), it came across like "Realair owes you a custom GPS" (in a 41 dollar plane - price of Duke piston v2 - turbine is cheaper).

 

By all means, get the F1 king air, 60 bucks - it has a custom GPS.

 

For me, I'm truly thankful that devs continue to integrate the RXP gauges.

[robert young 2,897]

The basic idea you are presenting, Hangman, is faulty.  The RealAir products cost what they cost, and are exceptional products.  For you to claim that the price you have to pay for a fully equipped version of the aircraft because they also take the time and trouble to fully integrate a different (and now defunct) developer's GPS that you can buy if you like is the same as claiming that if they didn't include Reality GPS integration their product would be a lot cheaper than it currently is for you.  By your logic, you'd have less to complain about if they didn't include integration for a more "realistic" GPS.  Ryan has tried to tell you that the cost of a third party GPS must be amortized over all the planes you can use it in, not simply added to the cost of the Duke.  By your logic, practically every other addon aircraft falls to the same critique, and the better ones more so, according to you, since they did such a good job on everything else.  

 

You suggest that the rest of the aircraft is high quality but the default GPS fails to live up to the standard overall.  Why pick on that one feature?  There is so much that our simulated aircraft can't really model accurately in FSX.  And the default GPS does a very good job, in fact, as Robert says.  There's little it doesn't do accurately.  If you are truly going to limit your purchases to aircraft that include more "realistic" navigation modeling, then, as pointed out, your addon list is going to be very short indeed.

 

Buy it or don't.  But to suggest that a good reason for not buying it is because RealAir didn't build a better GPS from scratch is a bit ridiculous, and the same as saying that almost every addon out there isn't worth buying.   

 

Thank you!

 

Best Wishes,

 

Rob - RealAir

[Mephic 129]

After 2 days I have to say - this aircraft is just AMAZING. Period.

 

Not only it looks beautiful but also handles very nice. Default GPS to me is enough. What I love about it most is the pressurized cabin - when I wan to fly it low I fly it low when I want to Go much higher I just ask ATC for clearance and I'm there. This is awesome!! It is fast enough and I'm sure I will buy second saitek throttle lever because of it as an NGX owner I didnt know that flying GA may be that fun. The only "flaw" to me is the fact that this is not complex airplane. Not because RealAir didn't do the job but because it is not as complex as modern jets I couldn't just take NGX in the air after 30 mins of reading manual. But this is off course not a real flaw love it and recommend it. And the sounds are just... Wow!

 

What I actually miss I service based failures or even any failures at all (flaps? Come on.....

[Griphos 138]

I have to say that as a general observation (not specific to this airplane) I don't really understand the desire for service based failures. Misuse failures, sure. In fact, I wish there were a way for hard landings to collapse gear or blow tires. But service based failures? The whole point of service and pre-flight checks is so NO problems occur. As a RW pilot, I guess I'm just too programmed to work very hard to avoid any failure of any kind to want that in the sim. And the failures I have experienced, from poor service, weren't fun!!

 

In fact, I find I don't really appreciate the modeling of pre-flight procedures such as in the A2A C172 or the Katana. It's not very realistic, and it feels like a simulation of aircraft ownership, rather than flying. As someone who has owned airplanes, I found the ownership aspects tedious, expensive, and anxiety inducing. I loved the flying part. That's the part I want to simulate.

 

But I can see the appeal for anyone who hasn't had that experience. Adds immersion, I suppose. Still, the desire for service failures on simulated aircraft you can't really service escapes me. Want to add a little excitement to your simulated flying? Do what I do...fly under bridges! Always wanted to do that in real life! :-)

[pilottj 198]

I think the idea behind service based failures is to encourage virtual pilots to respect the design limits  and adhere to the checklists of their simulated airplanes.  Encouranging virtual pilots to check the oil, sump fuel, do runup checks...etc is a good thing.  Doing this only strengthens good flying habits.  If virtual pilots want the whole pilot 'experience', then being a saftey nut is part of the deal.  Go to an FBO and rent some beater 172, are you going to skip the preflight? :lol:  If you are lucky enough to find yourself in the pilot seat of a real P-51.  I am sure you are going to want to know every inch and every quirk of that beast before you take it up on your own.

 

Still there is no reason why you can't enjoy airplanes that don't simulate service based failures or any kind of damage modelling.  You can still try to observe limitations, adhere to aircraft specific proceedures, do run up, check mags, suction..etc, just as a matter of keeping good habits up.

 

For me the fun is the all the different experiences.  It is no fun always flying the same plane over and over and over again, always doing the same proceedures and such when there is such a wide variety of airplanes to enjoy.  I mean, an RV, Legacy, BF-108, 172, Skymaster, Duke, P-51, 737...etc all have aircraft specific proceedures, performance envelopes, design limitations and such.  What you can get away with in a 172 is different than that of a P-51 and its great when those types of things are simulated. 

 

Whatever works eh? B)

[pilottj 198]

Don't want to hijack this thread, which is about the fantastic RealAir Duke v2.  It is a truely awesome airplane.  To those questioning the price.  Look at it this way.  The Duke is a 1970s era GA twin.  If you bought a Duke then, it would not have been equipped with any GPS at all.  If you owned an airplane like that when GPS became available, you would have to fork out an extra $$$$ to equip your aircraft with a GPS.  Like Ryan says, the beauty of the RXP you only have to buy it once and can equip on with many planes.  Otherwise think of the Duke sans RXP as a pre GNS era Duke.

 

My personal favorite panel style is the mix of old steam gauges with a GNS, allows you to experience both styles.  If I want to fly without GPS, I just flip the garmin to some info page or just it off.

 

If it's not a lot of work, perhaps Rob and Sean could even consider including an option that removes the default GPS entirely for a pure '70s-80s' layout.  And if they don't no biggie.  Either way, you still get an awesome airplane

 

Bring on the T Duke v2! :wub:

 

Cheers

TJ

[KingGhidorah 209]

I am still interested in being able to use a third party Weather Radar in these airplanes and others.  All the pictures of Dukes I've seen have a weather radar.  With the new ASN stuff, I hope in the future that there are collaborations between developers to deliver this much needed capability to future airplanes.

[robert young 2,897]

Don't want to hijack this thread, which is about the fantastic RealAir Duke v2.  It is a truely awesome airplane.  To those questioning the price.  Look at it this way.  The Duke is a 1970s era GA twin.  If you bought a Duke then, it would not have been equipped with any GPS at all.  If you owned an airplane like that when GPS became available, you would have to fork out an extra $$$$ to equip your aircraft with a GPS.  Like Ryan says, the beauty of the RXP you only have to buy it once and can equip on with many planes.  Otherwise think of the Duke sans RXP as a pre GNS era Duke.

 

My personal favorite panel style is the mix of old steam gauges with a GNS, allows you to experience both styles.  If I want to fly without GPS, I just flip the garmin to some info page or just it off.

 

If it's not a lot of work, perhaps Rob and Sean could even consider including an option that removes the default GPS entirely for a pure '70s-80s' layout.  And if they don't no biggie.  Either way, you still get an awesome airplane

 

Bring on the T Duke v2! :wub:

 

Cheers

TJ

 

I agree with your point. I think sophisticated GPS systems can actually detract from basic piloting skills when exclusively relied upon and another poster further up the thread complained that with his virtual airline he said he lacked the function of performing a diversion without a sophisticated GSP, which of course is not at all the case. Perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned here, but I remember I did my first triangular cross country over London to a rural airfield north of the capital, and I did it in sight of a huge 747 on approach to Heathrow over or near tower bridge which, if memory serves well, was the dividing point between VFR flights and IFR approaches.

 

I didn't even have a radio ( this was permissable then) and circled the destination airfield looking for the traditional airfield status signs embedded near the control tower for circuit direction etc. Now this does sound extremely old fashioned by today's standards, and I'm not suggesting we go back to that. However a typical hire GA aircraft, or syndicate owned GA machine even nowadays does not always have state of the art avionics. It worries me that sim pilots are becoming more interested in computer navigation than basic navigation skills to the point where they feel naked with what are actually extremely good basic instruments.

 

We fully support RXP GNS gauge users in the best way we possibly can, by very thoroughly integrating them into our aircraft. That's the best we can do until alternatives are not just discussed but actually RELEASED and we have a generous amount of time to test, assess and work with them. These packages are not cheap to produce. However the default GPS, in tandem with the standard VOR receivers in the Duke and other RealAIr aircraft, are perfectly capable of helping any pilot navigate over the entire world with not the slightest problem.

 

It is not that other devices are cheating. They are useful and sometimes add to safety. But safety statistics don't always entirely support that notion. There is no substitute for awareness and basic flying skills and that is what the core of all our products is designed to promote. For that reason we emphasise PILOTING skills. Flight simulator is a PILOT sim, not an aircraft servicing sim. It is not a engineering sim, or a mechanic sim. Of course there is nothing wrong with adding these elements if they do not replace the qualities of the core product. But there is only so much time and available budget. We have always concentrated on two main aspects and our customers tell us we do it quite well:

 

1) To deliver an addon that is above all flyable manually, is reasonably believable in its reaction to aerodynamic forces within FS limitations and is also a pleasure to handle, as well as perform reliably on autopilot.

 

2) To present crystal clear panels and gauges which run extremely smoothly so that they approach the maximum realism possible, and to provide solid, realiable, readable IFR gauges by which any pilot in any circumstances could navigate the world over.

 

Any addon in the price bracket users routinely demand nowadays cannot be produced with every possible new gizmo without compromises being made in other areas. Our priority has always been to provide a LASTING design, not a here today, gone tomorrow product. Some of our aircraft are still in popular use more than TEN years after they were released. We think that provides very good value for the outlay!

[Ron Attwood 3,465]

Well said. :good:

[Manny 1,293]

Hear Hear Rob.

[Manny 1,293]

.