We wished for a Tristar...such a shame about the response!

[Paul Golding 92]

Sadly, my above comments appeared whilst under the effect of a few glasses of Scotch - JD actually - and even more sadly, I can no longer edit the post.Regardless of my opinion, as a developer, I should keep my thoughts to myself as I know you're all big enough to form your own opinion without input from the likes of me.http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[michal 44]

Paul, some of us here do like sincere, unbashful posts made after a few glasses of JD. Please, we want more. :-lol Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[alsummers 0]

Well, upon reading new replies to this thread, I am glad that there are some people like me, who can see that this laughable product is a sub-standard money grabbing attempt, without actually having to buy it first.For those that believe my comments are unjustified, I did wake up this morning thinking that I may buy this product, just in order to post a review of it. But upon first checking the price, and then upon once again taking a glance at the screenshots, I figured I was being stupid even considering buying it. I have to say I missed the screenshots that Paul Golding pointed out, displaying the no.2 engine fan, JUST inside the tail engine inlet! A novel piece of engineering indeed! Turbine shafts that can do an S bend!Utterly laughable.

[MD83 1]

The PF L1011 has a visible fan on the #2 intake! :-eek :-xxrotflmaoHere's something I've just drawn:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/109863.jpgThe engine is in the fuselage, and not in the intake. I think the modeller must have been thinking about a DC-10 :-lol.

[Guest Erick_Cantu]

Even the DC-10 fan is in the very aft regions of its duct.

[Paul Golding 92]

Thanks Michael, I must admit I sometimes wish I could be someone else. There's a lot that should be said about a lot of products - both payware and freeware. Sadly, it's just not acceptable for developers to be seen to be critical of each other.Personally, I think engaging in a critical discussion can only lead to better products. There are a lot of people here who know an awfull lot (not me) but feel they need to only say nice things for fear of being jumped on in the forums. Of course there are also those that think they know a lot as well.....but it all makes interesting reading :-)http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[Paul Golding 92]

Erick, how's that Saab (it was a Saab?) coming along? I lost the link to it :-(http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[Guest QFA001]

>>I feel I can justifiably state that this company are a stain>on>>the face of flight simulation .......... I hasten to add that>I don't own any Perfect Flight releases>>Nothing like a fair, considered and balanced view!>>"Tried the new Tristar, Fred?">"Load of junk">"I thought so too">"Ah, you did try it then?">"Well no. Just looks like a load of junk. In my view">"Yes, my view too, entirely">"Did it fly straight?">"Don't know actually. Haven't tried it either">"Well we're agreed on that then. I must write a review for>Avsim and give them the benefit of our expertise ...">>Maybe this thread might eventually become useful when someone>has actually tried the product!>>Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumont>>http://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpgOK Mark you just made it. I was laughing so hard reading your post my one year old realised Daddy just lost his mind. LOLQuantasluvr

[Guest QFA001]

You are right Paul, but with all due respect (just like you did in your post) we should select our words when we criticise someone's hard (?) work. There is a huge difference between constructive critisism and flaming without facts. Of course it doesn't mean I don't agree with some posts here in this topic.Quantasluvr

[Paul Golding 92]

I totally agree, hence wishing I could edit the original post I made.If people would be brave enough to be critical AND at the same time back up posts with evidence, things could get a lot better. For example, not everyone knows there's no visible fan on the No 2, so someone (and not me) should post one of the promo screenshots and a similarly angled photo to prove the point. That way, there's no argument and it helps the developer.More importantly, this kind of thing does actually provide some tremendous assistance to any developer willing to move forward. It doesn't mean every suggestion can be incorporated (I mean some things just can't be done) but it may improve things. We (developers - both freeware and commercial) don't know everything and if someone steps up and says "hey, I currently work on the type and can tell you you've got some things wrong", then it offers the oportunity to improve.......should one wish to do so :-) To give an example, after the Dreamfleet 727 was released I was approached by a number of people who offered to be critical of what has been regarded as a very, very complete and bug free product. And some of these items they think need changing have not ever appeared in any forum. Believe it or not, the beta team on the 727 is not only still working on it, but has actually expanded :-)OK, that was 'blowing my own trumpet' at bit, but it's an example of how being critical can benefit the product......saying it looks nice because it has a nice shine and not mentioning the square wheels is doing everybody a dis-service, especially the developer that accidentally compiled the mdl with the wrong parts and didn't notice it........believe me, it happens and the more complex the product and the great the number of seperate mdl's it comprises, the greater the number in ####-ups there are.Ooops.....this went on a bit :-)http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[TRauppius 0]

Folks,I am one of those unfortunates who got enticed into buying the Perfect Flight L1011; I guess I am just a sucker for those great old tri-jets. Anyway, the aircraft visuals are OK, but not up to the standards of the mainstream payware products (PMDG, PSS, Dreamfleet), and have some serious flaws, such as outswinging passenger doors instead of the correct rollup/down type. The horizontal stabilizer is not articulated, no wing flex, no details in the wing internals or wheels, etc. The flight model is joke. Jack rabbit acceleration, poor roll response, nearly non-existent yaw control, and terrible ground handling. Very unrealistic feeling! The 2D panel is weak by payware standards (poor similarity to real) and the VC panel is even worse (no controls in VC). Systems: the fuel system is simplified to 3 tanks, no direct lift control, etc. The best part of the package are the engine, flight, and mechanical sounds; they sound pretty good....but are somewhat FAMILIAR if you know what I mean.Sorry for the bad news folks, but hey, live and learn. I just hope PMDG can finish up the B747 so they can get onto the tri-jet MD-11.Good flying,Todd

[alsummers 0]

Sorry to hear that Todd. Like you, I long to fly a fantastic Tristar model in FS2004. Sadly it hasn't happened yet, and this weak example certainly doesn't go towards filling the gap. Charles Dayhuff's admirable freeware model is no doubt better than the Perfect Flight attempt.As far as I can see, Perfect Flight's 717 was the closest they came to actually making a model that resembles its real world counterpart. Their MD-11, like the Tristar, is very poor. When compared to the the IFDG model, its like comparing an FS2000 model to a Gmax model from FS2004. And their A380 is also well below the standard of Robert V's freeware example.Since many of my fellow FS users considered my views somewhat presumptuous, I hope that if nothing else, this thread simply alerts more people before they throw their hard-earned at Perfect Flight models.On the other hand, if anyone owns, and enjoys Perfect Flight models, then long may you continue to enjoy them. Each to his own.Regards,Al.

[Wolfko 0]

>The flight model is joke. Jack rabbit acceleration, poor roll>response, nearly non-existent yaw control, and terrible ground>handling. Very unrealistic feeling! Ah, very unrealistic feeling!? Are you a realworld Tristar pilot, that you can judge this?I'm allways getting suspicious if someone is making such statements in a kind of bashing thread, who has so far only made 3 posts in total in the AVSIM forums. That's smelly!Wolfgang

[TRauppius 0]

Wolfgang,You are correct about my not doing a lot of posting as I do not usually feel compelled to jump-in with opinions that may be redundant with all of the other postings from forum members. I like to reserve my postings to situations where I have had first hand experience with the issue and, as is the case in this instance, a desire pass on what I have learned so that others may avoid wasting their valuable time and money.While I am not a TriStar pilot I am an older aerospace engineer currently working for Lockheed Martin. I was also on the development team for the DC-10 and worked as a liaison engineering pilot for McDonnel-Douglas. So I can assure you that both the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 and L-1011 flew superbly, with very well harmonized controls and precise controlability that could easily make you forget how massive they were. The flight models of some recent commercial products, such as the Level-D 767, PMDG 737, and Flight1 ATR42-500 feel "realistic" to me. The Perfect Flight L-1011 flight model just flat out behaves improperly, in my humble opinion.Todd

[Dillon 2,194]

I agree 100% Paul but not every developer accepts constructive criticism backed up with facts as you do. In fact most don't... Let's say a developer intended his product to be a 'lite' project not for the hardcore crowd and general users didn't know this and offered up positive suggestions. The developer either ignores them or get's quite nasty with them. Case in point, I know you realize many people offered great suggestion for a certain 727 project to have a better FDE along with many other features to help the product along. All requests went unheard and it took another developer to do real justice to the 727.Same goes for a well known developer who designed an awesome Airbus A320 series. They refuse to listen to customers and blocked every attempt to apply great improvements and ideas. They just moved on to other projects with no concern for their past customers. Other developers don't provide forums for their customers to discuss support issues and/or improvements to the product, they just throw products out there (Ariane).It's refreshing to see developers like Dreamfleet and Eaglesoft who actually talk and treat their customers with respect. Ready For Pushback has been excellent in this as well, expanding on it's product by listening to users. Per my suggestion is what's got the 747 VC so well lite at night. That's birds cabin and cockpit is a sight to behold at night thanks to them listening in their forums.The only thing I know dialog to do in many cases is #### off one developer and open the door for another developer who's willing to listen (or has been listening) to produce a better product, case in point the DF727. Arrogance is in abundance in this community and that's why it