Dreamfleet Bonanza A36 : who is gonna get it?

[Guest]

F1 sometimes has special offers when there's a double product release. Example was the release of the DF Cardinal coinciding with IWI1, during which for a limited time it was possible to buy both as a bundle for a reduced price.PSS have a constant policy of giving discounts on multiple simultaneous purchases which can add up quickly.Simmarket has frequent special offers, and some constant discount offers when purchasing several items from the same manufacturer at once. Lago has (or had, they may have discontinued) regular discount offers as well.That's just a few that come to mind :)

[Guest nramsey]

I'll definitely be ordering as well. Been waiting a while for this release!

[Lars Peter Hammer 0]

Lou wrote:"Actually, Lars, it is not "Lou's" aircraft but "Julie's" aircraft that we modeled, with our mutual friend, Lee Hetherington at the virtual controls. Some of you might know Lee from the TCAS II gauge he programmed for 767PIC and others."Hehe - I stand corrected then... and Julie is one lucky girl i guess. :-)I have Nels aircraft and hopefilly will get hold of Julie's today - why are you holding your own aircraft out? I could use a Dreamfleat Dakota in my hanger ;-) Looking foward to the release.-Lars

[Manny 1,293]

Win2000 here.. Hmmm... Too bad..

[Guest DreamFleet]

The 727's radar and the A36's radar are essentially the same as to abilities, we just "re-skinned" the one in the 727 so it would look more at home in the panel. Or, it is essentially a WX-500 with a different "face". :-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[Sonar5 3]

>You forgot to mention that to be the same price in real>dollars as the Cardinal (say) which costs $23 (and has since>release 2 years ago) the A36 should cost the same plus>inflation which over 2 years is about 10% or $4.50. Therefore>the price for the A36 corrected for inflation based on the>price of the C177 should be $27.50, not $25.>>Thus in real money the A36 is indeed cheaper than the C177>while being a more complete and complex product :)Jeroen,Your Inflation figures are incorrect as this release is priced in US Dollars so that is my Comparison. Inflation over the last two years in the US was not 10%.Their Cessna 310 is priced at $22.95.With Inflation (CPI),In 2003, it was +2.3%In 2004, it was -0.1%So let's look at reality here, shall we. And not knowing the actual release date of the 310, or The Cardinal I'll give them the entire year for Inflation (cpi) for this calculation. One could go back and do a month by month calculation which would be a bit more accurate, but by looking at the chart, not much difference, and it would be worse for them, IMHO, since inflation was declining throughout most of the time-frame.For 2003: Cessna 310 is $22.95 x 2.3% = .53 (53 cents), bringing the price adjusted for inflation at the end of 2003 to $23.48.For 2004: Cessna 310 is $23.48 x -.1% = -.02 (- 2 cents), bringing the price adjusted for inflation at the end of 2004 to $23.46.So even if you use your comparison analogy about what the A36 should be priced at, it doesn't wash with your inflation theory, because actual inflation in US Dollars which is what it is priced in, it still costs more than any of their prior GA releases.Comparison to their 727 is not relevant, IMHO, because the big Jets are more complex IMHO, and many other people consider them more complex as well, thus allowing a potential higher price, IMHO.If they are going to come out and hype some product with their beta testers and those getting a financial gain from marketing positions posting in these forums, then they should be held to the fire for announcing to consumers under some scheme that says they are rewarding us by being prior customers. And then in reality, after researching this, there is no reward, in my opinion, just marketing hype.And go look in this thread who brought up the pricing scheme, & reward scenario, and linked to the feature page, showing the inclusion of the gauges.Look what was posted above:****************From JeanLuc"Straight from the Dreamfleet A36 preview page. I'm sure no one will be able to find an excuse to not purchase this fine bird...====================================================================http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/A36...w_features.htmlPriceHow much will all of this cost?Special Introductory Price*>>> To be announced at time of release <<<*We are pricing the A36 at this price to reward our loyal customers, who over the years have added many DreamFleet aircraft to their hangar, and also to entice those who have never owned a DreamFleet Aircraft to adding the A36 to their fleet! This introductory price is subject to increase without notice."******************************Now that is a blatant ad, IMHO, and what I find interesting is the name of the member here who wrote it, JeanLuc_. Is this the same Jean-Luc Dupiot, president of Reality XP who wrote it, as discovered at this link, that talks about the Dreamfleet and reality XP relationship?:http://www.reality-xp.com/company/press/re...se-20041104.pdfIf it is, why not disclose the relationship. I searched that members name here, and found posts going back to 2002, and guess what, most concern Reality XP, not a big leap here.That may not be just some ordinary member here, I would like to know if he is the same Jean-Luc Dupiot, president of Reality XP, where according to their website press releases, they have announced "A flagship co-op advertising program,". Sounds like a financial gain interest to me, IMHO. Why not just disclose it so all consumers get a fair viewpoint. I see no harm in that.To me, I find those types of posts unethical, IMHO, and I feel the consumers should be able to know who is writing what prior to purchasing the aircraft, especially if they have a financial gain from doing so. (At least Lou has his Dreamfleet signature in his posts and member name, which is how I like to see it disclosed) You know, when I see a TV Commercial here in the US, they list that actors are paid compensation for doing ads. Here it seems to me, I've noticed a few people here and there blatantly placing ads within the forums just prior to releases, and not disclosing their relationships. And that is fine, but they have to take the flip side of that which is criticism for their perceived hype as well.That same person, above, instead of debating the facts as I present them, chooses to lodge personal attacks at me instead, without disclosing whether they had a relationship with the developer.Don't you find that the least bit disturbing? I do.That same person above accused me of having some campaign here.Well, why is it OK for these developers to have campaigns just prior to release, beta testers slamming the forums, posting their screenshots, having others like the above placing blatant ads for payware in this thread, and yet they come in here and accuse me of having a campaign. Classic flip attack, instead of debating facts at hand, and possibly explaining them.Well, what I have posted is true, IMHO, and it is their procedures and words I am debating here.I didn't create this, Dreamfleet and Reality XP did. They released their campaign and marketing hype, in my opinion,(releasing beta testers to post), and claiming some reward for past customers that simply has no logic or facts to support it, in my opinion.And if that is the way they do business, consumers should have an opportunity to discover these practices.I also have a beef with their advertising.They were hyping prior to release that this so-called introductory price would be a reward for past customers. And as a past customer, I am offended by their actions here.IMHO, their scheme is unethical and just plain rubbish.This is Dreamfleet's most expensive General Aviation Aircraft,(according to their current products page), and they attempt some marketing scheme, In my opinion, as if people are too stupid to figure out what their scheme is.There is no reward for past customers, IMHO, as I have proven this is a price increase over past General Aviation products dreamfleet has released, and I question the ethics of such a scheme. It is as bad as them claiming a $70.00 Value for some gauges that only work in one aircraft, when the true value of $70.00 would only be achieved if one were to purchase the Reality XP products separately and they would potentially work in dozens of aircraft if not more, IMHO.I've had FS9 since August 8th, 2003, and when I see developers do something that I see as unethical, and they devise some scheme like they have here, I will disclose it as long as my facts are accurate, and they are in this case, IMHO.Dreamfleet could rectify this very easily, IMHO, and restore quite a bit more trust in the process as well.Potentially, they can do this:1) Offer a further discount for current owners of Reality XP or the HSI Products.(Set up a seperate purchase scheme, as those persons will see different values for their inclusion)2) Reflect an Introductory price that is less than their prior General Aviation Aircraft, and then their claim as a reward for prior customers may hold some weight, and restore integrity to that claim, IMHO.3) Lower the claimed value of the Included Reality XP products and HSI, from $70.00 to more accurately reflect their inclusion in their A36 Bonanza, since it only works in that product, and no others according to their claims. That, IMHO, would restore some of the lost trust they have incurred in my eyes, and that will restore integrity to the situation.They can do what they like, of course, but that is how I see it. I see solutions, and if they can't recognize what I have outlined, then that is also their choice, which I will respect, but I don't have to agree with it.Take Care,JoeInflation Resource:http://www.gpec.org/InfoCenter/Topics/Econ...SInflation.htmlhttp://www.bls.gov/cpi/****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[Guest CaptainSensible]

I have the V36 - bought it this afternoon. I dont think the price is bad in

[zfehr 1]

Curious,Glowing responses from long time posters, many of whom have been contributors to the hobby (freeware and payware), on this and other forums. Glowing responses from the members of the beta team, commenting on how frame rates in particular were a concern and how many configurable items there are to affect this particular concern. Flames from a one time posters that doesn't quite know which model he bought. I expect a certain amount of anger from those that wish it was freeware, or wish that they could circumvent buying the RealityXP instruments included by buying just this aircraft and using the instruments elsewhere.Personally I will be downloading this afternoon and can't wait to fly it. I really don't have questions about the quality because of my prior experiences with Dreamfleet.Zane

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

Hardly a "one time poster" and flamer. Merely forgot my login at the office and posted using a new username. This is my regular sign-inIt amazes me the number of people on here who will without checking reviews go and purchase any old rubbish from some payware developers.Flight1/Dreamfleet are NOT one of those developers (their Archer and C310 are fantastic addons) however it does concern me that the framerates on this new aircraft are significantly lower than all the others I own. I can fly it perfectly on my new system but I was posting merely with a concern for those people with older systems who buy everything available and then complain bitterly when they get -10fps on their PC's because they havent upgraded (or cannot afford) a premium system to run FS2004.2D and VC look wonderful, FD is fluid and appears v accurate to the realworld aircraft. And

[zfehr 1]

Sorry Alan,Saw the top name, one post (at the time), no personal info when I checked and jumped to the conclusion the post might be a cleverly hidden stab at Dreamfleet. Read your other post under the same name and saw there really was no mal intent. I run an Athlon 2000 so I am interested to see the rates I get and will report. Have always been able to find a way to get usable rates even with Feelthere's PIC ERJ-145 which is the heaviest hitter in my hanger. I don't expect the A36 to bring down computer resources like that one did.I was happy before and still am,Zane

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

I think an element of tweaking will be needed with the V36. I flew it from Reus (Spain) with no AI and no weather. 30-35fps was a bit shocking but I guess with some tweaking you'll get a nice fluid simulation. I switched to their Archer and got 75fps, PMDG 737-700NG was 56-65fps in 2D. Even my framerate hogging Meridian was 45fps!

[W2DR 1,860]

I don't see a framerate issue here. And this system sure ain't state-of-the-art. A quick comparison (2D only - I never use the VC in any aircraft) at my normal startup situation (KMRY 28L, fair weather, all display settings maxxed, and no traffic):Default Cessna 172 50-52 FPSPMDG 737NG 26-28 FPSLevel-D 767 30-32 FPSDreamfleet A36 36-38 FPS The framerate looks pretty good to me. I don't see any potential for a slideshow unless everything is a slideshow.DougA tired-and-aging Northwood 2.2a OC'd at 2.72Ghz (Intel HSF)An Abit TH7II-R motherboard that needs a BIOS upgradeA meager 512MB of Samsung 40ns PC800 RAMAn original ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB) running Cat. 4.11'sThe latest OS stuff - DX9c, WinXP Pro (SP2)5 cheap WD HDD's (120GB, 120GB, 120GB, 120GB, 120GB)A really-superb Plextor 708A DVD/CD WriterA very-fast A-Open 1648/AAP DVD/CD RipperA now-not-too-bright Viewsonic PF790 (19")An even-dimmer Compaq S700 (17")A very large Inwin case fitted with a Enermax 431W PSU