So you have just refunded it, even though I said I didnt want it refunded?.SighI NEVER said I wanted a refund, but you took it upon yourself to do it.I also notice my post over at your forum regarding the crashes has been removed.Seems these days that NO critisim can be leveled at ANY developer, you either get bashed down by the a really excited user, or get caned by the devs, then get blacklisted.If you read my first posts, I did say some nice things about the product, but as usual you look at the negetives rather than the positivesThis payware lark must be such a sweet and juicy cherry for people, they seem to defend it pretty well.Its all about the benjamins these days it would seem

Ok, i see some very diffrent post from F1-PC12 users, and its not very fair from me to write stuff like this without having tested it.If the F1 refund stuff really is working, i maybe will try it :-)RegardsDaniel

After spending (too) much time with this bird yesterday, I can say that at least IMHO, this is a very good buy indeed. Yes, the somewhat low quality of the virtual cockpit and virtual cabin (I'm not too happy, for example, with the crappy looking seats in the cabin) takes some getting used to, at least for me, since I do prefer crisp and almost photo-realistic looking textures and panels. Perhaps a future patch could correct some of these issues. Two things about the flight dynamics:1) I noticed a very steep approach once the glideslope is captured, but this seems to be how the real thing flies. 2) Full flaps during when landing don't seem to be necessary. Selecting flaps 30 corrects the steep approach angle. 3) On page 4 of the POH's performance section is a table on maximum cruise power settings (torque and fuel flow at different altitudes/temperatures). The numbers obtained on an actual flight where almost identical to the performance specifications in the table. Finally, support over at the Flight1 forum is, as usual, fast, friendly, and efficient. In summary, a highly recommended addon, despite the reservations mentioned above.ricardo

The flight dynamics certainly are different, but so is the PC12 design... this is pretty close to a STOL aircraft. As documented on the Flight1 forum by a PC12 pilot, you should start with only using Flaps 15 until you get used to the airplane. Full flaps is only used for short field operations (I'm quoting here... I'm not a PC12 pilot :-) )Also, the very low landing speeds take some real getting used to... like getting the bird down below 90 knots before touch down..

I've found that the only really good aircraft Flight1 has are the ones made in conjunction with Dreamfleet. If you just buy those ones, you really can't go wrong.

Yes, the Flight1 / Dreamfleet products are pretty darn solid and some are real classics, like the Archer and the Cardinal.But... have you ever flown the Meridian or the Golden Eagle, not to mention the Conquest or the Cessna 172R?All of these aircraft are among the best of the best...I'm getting a sense that the folks on this forum are split between the ones that want "as real a piloting experience as possible" and the ones that want virtual cabins with photorealistic upholstery (my apologies to whoever wrote this.. I'm using one example out of context to make a point :-) ).I, for one like the aircraft that have real personality; almost like getting the keys to an experience that would otherwise be forever closed to me.. namely flying a real world, state of the art airplane.To me, the PC 12 qualifies, as do the previously mentioned aircraft.To those who are on the fence... I'd suggest not pre-judging an aircraft you have not flown...

>ones that want virtual cabins with>photorealistic upholstery (my apologies to whoever wrote this..I know, it may sound like a joke but considering some very recent VC shots that PMDG posted on their forum - VC with photorealistic upholstery AND silk smooth gauges is knocking on our door ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

>Yes, the Flight1 / Dreamfleet products are pretty darn solid>and some are real classics, like the Archer and the Cardinal.>>But... have you ever flown the Meridian or the Golden Eagle,>not to mention the Conquest or the Cessna 172R?>>All of these aircraft are among the best of the best...>>I'm getting a sense that the folks on this forum are split>between the ones that want "as real a piloting experience as>possible" and the ones that want virtual cabins with>photorealistic upholstery (my apologies to whoever wrote>this.. I'm using one example out of context to make a point >:-) ).>>I, for one like the aircraft that have real personality;>almost like getting the keys to an experience that would>otherwise be forever closed to me.. namely flying a real>world, state of the art airplane.>>To me, the PC 12 qualifies, as do the previously mentioned>aircraft.>>To those who are on the fence... I'd suggest not pre-judging>an aircraft you have not flown...>Bert,I agree. The quality and fidelity of these simulations have out distanced the users in many cases. (which is ok.) I soloed years ago and was unable to continue flying; however, I spent several years in the commercial simulation business (full scale nuclear, fossil and aviation) simulators. The quality of what we are seeing now is exceptional. In fact unbelievable considering the computing power, model simplifications and assumptions made. I just purchased the PC-12 and find it exceptional in what is important to me. Quality instruments, realistic gauge movement and the ability to hand fly the aircraft. IMHO the most underrated aircraft in flight sim history is the Flight1 ATR-72-500. Most shy away because turboprops are not of interest. Big mistake. :) What a magnificent simulation of systems and handling. It can only be appreciated by careful flight planning, adherence to procedures and experience with the auto flight systems required when flying online. The PC12 will require the same time and experience to be fully appreciated. Besides how can you go wrong with a money back guarantee? Bob.... :)

Is there just two versions to this plane?Anyone know if Flight1 is planning on adding a vc to the version that is lacking one?

>>IMHO the most underrated aircraft in flight sim history is the>Flight1 ATR-72-500. Most shy away because turboprops are not>of interest. Big mistake. :) What a magnificent simulation of>systems and handling. It can only be appreciated by careful>flight planning, adherence to procedures and experience with>the auto flight systems required when flying online. The PC12>will require the same time and experience to be fully>appreciated. >This is correct, but Flight1's ATR DOES come also with ultrasharp panel graphics, a great virtual cockpit, and a cabin. So I don't necessarily see a contradiction between systems fidelity and eye candy.ricardo

>I'm getting a sense that the folks on this forum are split>between the ones that want "as real a piloting experience as>possible" and the ones that want virtual cabins with>photorealistic upholstery (my apologies to whoever wrote>this.. I'm using one example out of context to make a point >:-) ).>Since I use a regular desktop one monitor setup, I need anything that can increase the illusion of being aboard and working with an aircraft. I'm not a real pilot, I don't use FS for training (although I'm rather serious about realism), I do simming for FUN and the illusion I want to create is NOT that of being a pilot doing sim training, but rather of piloting a real aircraft. Otherwise I could just use PS 1.3, and the likes of Flight1 wouldn't have anything to sell me. I need to be able to look around and see an immersive environment, and in the year 2005 that means a great photoreal VC, with a cabin if it's natural (and it is when there's no cockpit door).But I dont think it has to be a matter of priorities anymore. Addons such as the ATR or the PMDG NG has shown that we can have both fidelity and eyecandy (although airliner VCs are not quite useful yet). -

"although airliner VCs are not quite useful yet"I guess you haven't tried LDS's 767, Dreamfleet's 727, or Ariane's 737NG yet (not to mention PMDG's offerings)...:-roll

Ok guys i got it, and what i have to say?Good:The model is very nice with many exterior details!The sound is spot on! Very Nice!The Engine Gauges are like the real deal!The "PFD" (Attitude Indicator) :-), is very detailed and smooth in the 2D pit!Bad:The "PFD" in VC is about 1 FPS! Useless!The operation of the knobs (heading-, course, altitudeselector etc) is very toilsome! (i like the way: leftmouse singelstep, rightmouse 10er step)The 2D Pit performance is not very good (ATR is better then PC12!), i think it has to do with the very smooth "PFD"the are no 2D sideviews, even without VC!Just one perspective! (Maybe something like a landingview would be nice)Conclusion:This AddOn is not the badest i ever got for my money!But it is not on the same level like ATR, Meridian, LD767!If you like turboprob then the best and most realistic choices to date are, the Beech 200 Super King Air from Aeroworx and the ATR!! BTW: maybe to some it sound agressiv, but thats the problem with my english :-), i really try to be constructiv :-)If i hear something in the next 10 days about a "Patch or upgrade" i will stick to the PC12 otherwise i have to test the refund policy from F1.with regardsDaniel

>"although airliner VCs are not quite useful yet">>I guess you haven't tried LDS's 767, Dreamfleet's 727, or>Ariane's 737NG yet (not to mention PMDG's offerings)...:-roll>I have own LDS, PMDG 737 and the ATR 72. They are all very nice, but I still prefer to use 2D panels for critical phases of the flight due to better gauge smoothness. For small GA aircraft I pretty much use the VC all the time as they are less dependent on pilot precision and button pushing.-

are no 2D sideviews, even without VC!>Just one perspective! >I've only tried the VC version and I have 2D side views here!cheersTimhttp://members.chello.nl/t.westnutt/realair1.gif