Hi!I find I must disagree with the prevailing negative option of the Flight 1 PC-12. Certainly, people are entitled to express negative opinions if a cherished piece of equipment is missing or if some detail in the virtual cockpit is missing, but that does not mean the product is bad.I have been flying the free AFG PC-12, which is generally regarded as being pretty good and, in my opinion, the Flight 1 one is notably better in most respects.The panels are incredibly sharp and easy to read (especially by contrast to the award-winning Eaglesoft Citation X). That also applies to the virtual cockpit panel. I don't normally use them, because I find the 2D panels much clearer, but in view of the criticsm leveled at this one, I decided to try it. I found it remarkably clear and relatively smooth. It is a bit slow, but is pretty much on a par with the RealAir SF260, which is generally regarded as one of the better examples.There are bound to be some disappointments and even some minor defects and people are entitled to raise them, but reading most of the other posts, it is easy to gain the impression that this is a terrible product and not worth the money.That is simply not true. It is a very good product.regards,Alan.

>I found it remarkably clear and relatively smooth. It is a bit>slow, but is pretty much on a par with the RealAir SF260,>which is generally regarded as one of the better examples.>Every time a new aircraft shows up I hope that the developers have learned from the three ones that knows how a vc should perform, RealAir, ** and PMDG. For me there's only two approaches, the RealAir (absolutely smooth vc) way, ore ONE single vc entry, no ghost panels. Even if the SF260 are regarded as one of the better examples, RealAir themselves are not happy with the vc gauge speed, so a new version is in the making. I can't believe that this issue is not taken seriously when the developers are so clever with everything else!I don't care if the seatbacks are missing or the cabin looks cheap, I just want the right flying feeling from the pilot seat, and instruments that moves at exactly the same rate as the sim itself. Judging from what I've read, the PC12 is a fine product, looks great, it a bit different, has a good airfile, can be a challenge to land in STOL configuration et. etc. BUT. It has a slow vc. Nghhh!Eagle

After flying this aircraft for two days, I would also join the group that really appreciate this aircraft.Personally, I do most of my flying from the 2d view and only rely on the VC view for looking out the front left and the front right. Apart from occasionally looking around the cockpit for the "ambiance" factor.This airplane has real character and stands out in the crowd because of its innovative avionics and interesting slow flight capabilities that have been modelled beautifully. Even the GPS which lags behind the Garmin equivalent in function is kind of fun to use in the Direct-to mode and just adds to the overall realism.Maybe if you do all your flying in the VC, you might evaluate this airplane differently and like the PMDG B1900C better.. they are both good!

>For me there's only two>approaches, the RealAir (absolutely smooth vc) way, ore ONE>single vc entry, no ghost panels. Even if the SF260 are>regarded as one of the better examples, RealAir themselves are>not happy with the vc gauge speed, so a new version is in the>making. I can't believe that this issue is not taken seriously>when the developers are so clever with everything else!You need to understand that the technique pioneered by RA for the VC gauges are fine for analog instruments, but are simply not possible (at this time) for "glass gauges." The XML code compiled into the .mdl file simply doesn't support vector graphics (at least not in FS9). What the future may hold is quite another matter.Unfortunately, XML is not a compiled .dll file, but rather is an "interpreted scripting language" that will always be slower than compiled binary instructions that don't suffer from the inherent lag time of interpretation and translation into executable instructions.Compounding the problem is that - if the user wants a 2d panel as well - then the same gauge(s) must be coded twice: once for the VC and once again for the 2d.Embedded XML model code is ideal for a/c with strictly analog gauges, and for which no 2d panel will be offered. Otherwise, it isn't a good solution at all.

>>You need to understand that the technique pioneered by RA for>the VC gauges are fine for analog instruments, but are simply>not possible (at this time) for "glass gauges." Does this apply to the PMDG 1900C and ** Mustang way as well: One single vc window?Eagle

For the B1900C: yes.

>the VC gauges are fine for analog instruments, but are simply> not possible (at this time) for "glass gauges." The>XML code compiled into the .mdl file simply doesn't support>vector graphics (at least not in FS9). What the future may>hold is quite another matter.Therefore it will be interesting to watch what PMDG have up their sleeves when they promise smooth glass/analog VC displays in their upcoming 747-400.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Bill, what is it that I don't understand. I did some experiments:1. This is a 1900C where I inserted King Air glass gauges. It works, and it's smooth.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/113984.jpg2. This is an FDS Cheyenne (another exellent aircraft, exept for slow vc gauges) with glass EHSI. I removed every vc ghost panels, leaving only 1. It runs very smooth.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/113985.jpgSo I can't see why glass gauges are not combinable with smooth vc if you use the PMDG/World of Power approach putting all those instruments into one single vc entry!Michael J., my guess for what PMDG have up their sleeves is something similar to the 1900C, it will be interesting to see.PS: Yes I know this must seem like a personal crusade, and maybe bore y'all to death. But after 1 second in a LOMAC cockpit I was thinking "What the heck is wrong with fs9, the vc looks and feels like crap in comparison". Then RealAir came with the Spit, and right after that ** with the P51 and PMDG with the 1900C. And the next is a 747! So I have a hard time accepting that it isn't achievable. That's all :)Eagle

We're mixing two different technologies here...The Spitfire has the gauges designed as an integral part of the 3d model. As noted above, there are limitations as to what kind of gauges can be implemented this way (at least for now..)BTW, the Spitfire has no 2d cockpit.The B1900C has conventional FS gauges in a single VC window. In this case, any gauges will work. Now, I'm not a gauge designer, but this seems to be the common wisdom at present.. until someone surprises us with yet another gem :-)

To carry on with my crusade: This means that IF the developer WANTS to make smooth running gauges, they CAN, glass or steam, providing they don't use "integral part of the 3d model" style gauges. (And that they know how obviously ;).)Eagle

Correct .. developers must incorporate XML code into the .mdl files for analog gauges, and can implement digital gauges as per usual, with the stipulation that there only be 1 or 2 VC sections. Following those guidelines will guarantee a smooth VC.