Hi AllHas anyone tried these planes out, and how are your impressions about them.RegardsHenrik KorningBGGH

there is a thred a few pages back about this, it's called "your favorit military aircraft" or something close, go there and see what was said about the c17

Henrik,I bought the combo mainly for the C-17. For $12US the package is good. The T-38 is pretty cool though it is a gas guzzler and very sensitive (I like that though). I live in New Jersey so I was ready for the C-17s flying out of McGuire AFB. I've added scenery using Rwy12 objects and the Project AI Military package of the 514th Airlift Wing. Not only can I fly out of McGuire, I now have company.My impressions of the C-17:1. VC is OK. At 50% zoom, the view is great outside but the gauges are just readable.2. The model definitely handles like a heavy aircraft but is not unmanageable.3. Framerates are good with most medium settings (on a P4/1.2Ghz/512MB/64MBNvidia) in and out of the cockpit/aircraft.4. The HUD is good in 2D but a bit dark in the VC. I am not sure if there is a way to lighten it.5. The Taxi & Landing lights are too bright, they obscure the view.6. The ground handling is good.I have no real life C-17 experience so take this for it's face value. Definitely install the freeware 2D panel suggested. Not knowing the real layout, I'd like to see a better 2D panel (no disrespect to the creator).I like the combo very much, especially on a mediocre system that i have. I hope this helps.Jim

Hi Jim and SpookyThanks for your inputs. I have decided to go for it.RegardsHenrik

C-17 is roughly shaped in all aspects. It's in the ballpark. But that's it. The Vc is all out of proportion, but the big pieces of the VC are present. The whole thing smacks of grand plans with loss of interest. There is some lack of forethought in their installer and their panels, but most won't run into those problems. Their support was accusatory. The T-38 appears to be the exact same one that has been released as freeware, but with fixed canopy reflections (I haven't flown it much, so I could be way off there). Having said all that, we are only talking $12. (the last $ they'll see from me, but still only $12)

I really wanted a decent 'C-17' and I thought that this one might be the answer seeing that is was payware.Viewing the screenshots and noticing that there was NO 2D panel more or less turned me in the opposite direction.Mike Stone and www.byteforge.com both produce freeware versions that are as good or better visually than this one.So, the payment is for, as reported, a rather dismal 'VC' cockpit. Rather poor effort I believe in such an improving market.Dave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

This panel for the C-17 works in FS9 but you will have to alter the GPS.cfg to suit.http://www.byteforge.com/addons/addon_history_2002.htmThe FSD panel isn't a patch on this one.Dave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

>So, the payment is for, as reported, a rather dismal 'VC'>cockpit. Exactly. For some, this is better than no VC.> Rather poor effort I believe in such an improving market.But it is priced accordingly (within the context of the spiralling prices of payware addons these days).

no one seemed to mention that this is in fact the old posky C17 (freeware) with a tossed together, blurry, VC. Hardly payware quality but more poor freeware quality. (I've had a chance to see it in more detail then I did before on the older post)

>no one seemed to mention that this is in fact the old posky>C17 (freewareIs it? (I seem to remember that one being higher quality. *grin?*)

Thank God this "payware" isn't being compared to the recently released Beech 18 "freeware..." :)

>Thank God this "payware" isn't being compared to the recently>released Beech 18 "freeware..." :)ROFLMAO!

I bought it, mostly for the T-38, hoping that they would fix some instrument panel problems from their FS 2002 freeware version:1. Bearing pointer on the HSI is frozen to North and does not point to the selected VOR/TACAN. This feature is essential when flying DME-Arc approches/departures , and is also essential when flying a fast moving jet like the T-38. There is no time to be constantly centering the CDI to figure out your relative bearing to the VOR/TACAN.2. The DME readout was just too small to read, even on a 21" 768x1024 monitor. I was hoping that they would have an option to enlarge the ADI/HSI display to make it large enough for precise instrument flying.The new FS9 T-38 is a rather lame attempt to duplicate the new T-38C instrument panel. Unfortuntely they have an absurd ADI that shows a maximum of 20 degrees of pitch, making it completely unusable for acrobatic maneuvers and recovery from unsual attitudes. There are no Flight Director command bars or needles for flying an ILS. (Flying a precise raw-data ILS in a plane of this performance is almost impossible) 3. The EGT and Fuel-Flow readings dont match the throttle/RPMs.Why go to the trouble of expanding these guages when the information they display is so inacccurate? We are unable to select afterburner by moving the throttles full forward. It is unrealistic to try to fly a plane of this performance by taking both hands off the controls to select AfterBurner by pressing keyboard commands or using the mouse.4. The external views show no blue-afterburner flame. It's sad that they omitted this feature from such a beautiful airplane.My recommendation is that FSD add a fix for the above problems to refine the beautiful T-38 A panel that was really exceptional for a FS 2002 FreeWare version.PS: Is there supposed to be a working HUD display on the C-17? The only thing showing on my computer is an empty glass panel with no information displayed on it.Tom Bigelow - USAF T-37, T-38 , C-130E , C-141 A/B