Greetings Ron,

 

I just want to make sure: are you aiming to have these new offerings compatible with P3Dv2?  The CX 2.0 is not, and I am hoping the situation regarding that has improved.

 

Thanks for your contributions, very good looking stuff!

 

Don

Something I find odd... when the Eaglesoft Citation X v2.0 was released, there was absolutely no other business jet available for FS9 or FSX that has the system depth and accuracy as the Eaglesoft release. Even to this day, there is still no other business jet available for FS9 or FSX that has the same system depth and accuracy.

 

Yet... people really don't seem to care that much about accuracy. I see Ray asking MilViz to do a Citation with a PL21 (not sure which airframe) but I'm assuming he's expecting MilViz to 'plug-n-play' their 350i PL21 gauges into a Cessna panel and *poof!*. That's not accurate, not even remotely... but he's willing to buy that?

 

At the same time... people don't like the VC model... so they won't purchase an addon. It really boggles my mind.

 

Now... please read this: It's fine that those are your choices... and I accept them, but I am simply pointing out that they are confusing to me.

Hi Ed,

 

Really excellent post and fair enough.  To me it is a balance between systems and visuals that allows me to pretend that I'm doing something that I know I'll never do IRL.  To sit in the cockpit, look at the VC, see the sky...the ground and get a solid sense of flying it.  It's certainly not all visuals...there are a lot of FSX airplanes that are visually amazing that I won't fly because the systems are not done very well.  But when they do both?  It's like....magic. 

 

Gregg 

Ray... read my post again. I said nothing about 'outstanding'... I said accuracy. One does not mean the other nor vice versa. This isn't about who makes the better widget. It's my wondering why someone's willing to take crap systems modeling and so-so avionics as longas the visual model is "outstanding". I fail to grasp that acceptance and seek to understand it better.If you want to answer it by judging my work with vague references that only you understand, you're honestly missing the point.

Well, I guess I honestly missed your point indeed. When one posts to world that I am basically dumb and stupid and will buy crap that is slapped together, then what do you expect for a response?

 

I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but we only buy widgets that we like. All the accuracy in the world is for naught if it is an accurate dud.

 

I like a good balance between presentation, ease of understanding, innovations and MY expectations in an add on for FSX. The price is usually not one of my primary considerations. I also think reasonable accuracy is enough for a $50 add on as long as it works properly for that aircraft or system.

 

Some of the most recent reviews reveals the once restricted FSX SDK is now wide open to those developers that tend to think 'out of the box' so to speak. I personally think the newest offerings by the Big 3 are truly outstanding and said so in my published reviews. I even put links to them in my signature.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Well, I guess I honestly missed your point indeed. When one posts to world that I am basically dumb and stupid and will buy crap that is slapped together, then what do you expect for a response?

Well, please point out where I said you "will buy crap that is slapped together". LOL

 

I read a lot of posts here at AVSIM regarding addons. I've read statements like "stunning visual model, crap systems"... "great looking but horrible avionics". Please note at no point did I indicate a person who stated it nor did I indicate a vendor.

 

You really are taking this discussion way, way too personal. It's meant to be an open question as to why people will pay for an addon that has "crap systems" or "horrible avionics" but the visual model is "outstanding" and yet if the visual model is not "outstanding" then it doesn't matter about anything else at all.

 

The 3D model, no matter how pretty it is... is 100% worthless in a simulation if it has no avionics, no systems, no flight dynamics. That's three other areas that are critical yet all three are allowed to be far less than "outstanding" by a great deal of individuals as long as the 3D model is indeed "outstanding". I base this statement on posts here at AVSIM.

 

I'm just trying to understand why this 'standard' is acceptable.

Hi Ed,

 

Really excellent post and fair enough.  To me it is a balance between systems and visuals that allows me to pretend that I'm doing something that I know I'll never do IRL.  To sit in the cockpit, look at the VC, see the sky...the ground and get a solid sense of flying it.  It's certainly not all visuals...there are a lot of FSX airplanes that are visually amazing that I won't fly because the systems are not done very well.  But when they do both?  It's like....magic. 

 

Gregg 

 

Gregg

Thanks Gregg.

,

You really are taking this discussion way, way too personal. It's meant to be an open question as to why people will pay for an addon that has "crap systems" or . . . ..

Well, when you start the subject with - "Ray asking Milviz . . . "- it does tend to make it rather personal, don't you think?

 

Your whole complaint seems to be more about integration of systems and airframes than accuracy and functionality.

 

Anyhow, this is not the time nor the place for a 'mine is bigger than yours' type of discussion so I am bowing out.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

 

 

The only negatives I can give this plane is that it needs an installation document and a flight procedures document. The KLAS-KLAX sample flight document has some errors and omissions in it

 

Time to get that CC out again Ted

 

http://secure.simmarket.com/d-sim-the-citation-x-fms-flight-planning-guide.phtml

I just installed the CX v2. . . . I had a frustrating time getting it installed and now I am searching the internet for the proper procedures to fly it. The only negatives I can give this plane is that it needs an installation document and a flight procedures document. The KLAS-KLAX sample flight document has some errors and omissions in it. . . .

 

Ted

 

I had the same startup and learning curve stumbles with the X. Mine had reference flight documents for KLAS KLAX but discussed a flight from Phoenix to Las Vegas instead.

 

I would welcome a new accurate tutorial flight for the X that demonstrates the depth and accuracy of the systems. Maybe one based on one of the real world flights of XOXO or similar high end charter companies flying the X every day.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Time to get that CC out again Ted

 

http://secure.simmarket.com/d-sim-the-citation-x-fms-flight-planning-guide.phtml

Wow. This appears to be required reading for those just being introduced to the X. Hard to believe it has been available for two years with so little discussion in the forums.

 

I wish I had known about it when I was researching the Cessna and the Citations review. It sounds like it has answers to all of my questions.

 

Anyone have any comments about this book?

 

Regards,

Ray

I used it when I was first getting started with the CX

It takes the form of a tutorial flight with emphasis on the correct FMS usage for each stage of flight.

If you know your way around the CX there will not be to much new in there for you, but what else are you going to spend $14 on ?

I used it when I was first getting started with the CX

It takes the form of a tutorial flight with emphasis on the correct FMS usage for each stage of flight.

If you know your way around the CX there will not be to much new in there for you, but what else are you going to spend $14 on ?

Sounds like just what I was suggesting. I think I will check it out. Thanks.

 

Ray

In all honesty it's a real shame that Ed (WarpD) has come into this thread with a defensive mindset.  Take a look at Ron's response to Gregg's comments about the CX 2.0's visuals - no defensiveness at all.  Some agreement and acknowledgement and dedication to make the '3.0' models state of the art in terms of visuals.

 

There's no need to drag a positive, encouraging, upbeat thread down to bickering and semantics Ed, just because your ego got dented.  I'm sorry but you did the same in some Mindstar based threads too.

 

Look in my opinion, the CX 2.0 is one of the greatest jets ever released for FS (I said Jets, not just 'business jets'), the flight dyamics, systems and sounds are divine.   Are the visuals the best around?  No of course not.   It's a circa (2008, 2009?) product.    Unfortunately, whilst it's systems are still state of the art for FS, the visuals aren't.  That's just fact.

 

Everyone should still buy it, because it's absolutely superb across the board.... but the defensiveness and edginess just isn't needed IMHO.

 

If you think Ray is your enemy here Ed, you're miles off!

Nothing like a good level headed post to get things back on track. Thanks Dave. I'm off the read my latest new book. Thanks mad dog for the tip and link.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Ok, now that everyone has enjoyed yet another Avsim xxxxing contest lets move on.

The LROPS Manual in question for CX2.0 was covered at length in our old forum before the hack attacks.

It was decided at that time that Capt. Josh Walden would go commercial with his work with our blessings.

Recently had a conversation where he stated that LROPS is no longer available.

 

We've already stated on numerous occasions that CX2.0 as is will eventually have a companion product called CX3.0.

That product will satisfy simmers need for so called "state of the art" model and texture files and system documentation updates.

The former modeler has now been replaced so it is an eventuality that CX3.0 will reach RTM.

 

Meantime, let's all refrain from beating a dead horse about old models, textures. B)

Go Ron go! Patiently looking forward to the new Eaglesoft releases.

One neat thing about the ES X is you still find new things about it well after purchase. One bored night enroute to Hawaii, I found the conversions page in the FMS. Haha

Go Ron go! Patiently looking forward to the new Eaglesoft releases.

Many thanks for the patience Nathan. B)

One neat thing about the ES X is you still find new things about it well after purchase. One bored night enroute to Hawaii, I found the conversions page in the FMS. Haha

That's funny right there.. :rolleyes: