Is this just the biggest rip off?

[Guest ogeva]

Just to answer yor previous question -Yes I did.I own the PMDG 747, PMDG 737, LDS 767 and many other. So I flew both the PMDG 744 and the Tu154.If fact, I do think PMDG 744 is a rip off.Yes, it's very good. Yes, months have been put into it. But I don't see where it does anything beyond LDS for exapme, to justify such a steep rise in price.I find the DF 727 excelent, and also the RFP 742. I don't think these are of lower quality than the PMDG 744. In fact, I enjoy them more.Anyway, you should give the TU154 a try. It's Different. A 744 is just the same as the 767 or 738. They all feature very similar systems and way of flying. Try the Tupolev. It's free. And you've never seen anything like it. Trust me.I am not part of the Project Tupolev team, and I have no reason to promote them - except that I belive it's one the best, most complete aircraft made for FS.http://online.vatsimindicators.net/825051/142.png

[michal 44]

>But I>don't see where it does anything beyond LDS for exapme, Much better VC with no 2D pop-ups, more fluid VC gauges. For some this may be 'little' for other it is 'huge'. ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest ogeva]

Definetly little.What makes the VC 'much better'? The fact that the seats move and the books open?do you really feel this is worth 30% increase if addon cost (as you can see, the result is that any addon now costs 50$).Anyway, for me what matters is systems modelling and flight modelling. Yes, I do expect to see a nice exterior model and a VC. But this is not what makes the plane great.http://online.vatsimindicators.net/825051/142.png

[michal 44]

>Definetly little.>What makes the VC 'much better'? The fact that the seats move>and the books open?You did not read what I said - gauge refresh rate. For me it is definitely "huge", for you "little". Ok it is settled then.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest ogeva]

Sure, I can accept certain things unimportant to me can be very important to others.Still... try the Tu154... http://online.vatsimindicators.net/825051/142.png

[Guest Gordius]

Having just read this thread I can't help but notice that noone actually owns this prodcuct and a couple do not even seem to own anything from Abacus. A few pictures on a website are hardly enough to prejudge such a package. My experience of Abacus is that aircraft are below the standard expected by many and I stopped buying them a long time ago with one exception.I do own the Abacus A380 so perhaps I can something about that. The visuals from the outside are IMHO good. The panel is better than the default and any freeware offering I have found but way short of the PSS A320/A340 which I expwcted for $19. At the time I purchased it I needed an A380 for a specific flight and did/do not expect to use it much again so the last thing I had time for was reading a bulky manual etc. It suited my needs perfectly and I was not dissapointed. Any more than a mere $20 and I certainly would have been. Would I have bought it knowing exactly what I was going to get? Yes.Default Gauges - only the 737 radio gauges). Yes I did make a few changes to the panel but very few.My final words echo others I have seen here. You get what you pay for. Don't walk in blindly though try to search for comments of the product here (those who actually OWN the product). If you want something of the quality of the PMDG products then go where you know you will find them and not Abacus! If you see a collection of aircraft that works out at $5 each then expect an aircraft worth $5 and not $50.Andrew BrownRoaring Thirtieshttp://www.gordiusfs.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[Guest ha5mvo]

Andrew,Why would you rather pay (even $5) than support freeware?

[Guest Gordius]

>Andrew,>Why would you rather pay (even $5) than support freeware?I wouldn't unless I could get something better than freeware exactly as is the case with all payware aircraft I have :-)I don't expect to ever buy the package but it would be interesting to know what is like from someone who owns it.Andrew BrownRoaring Thirtieshttp://www.gordiusfs.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[Guest IanP]

There are also occasions where freeware no longer covers the commercial product's contents - examples are Flight Deck III before 3Wire was released (RCBCO doesn't count - it works in a totally different way). There is also still no A-6 Intruder for FS2004, so I have to use Rick Salasa's FS2002 aircraft which, in fairness, the textures aren't that good on.I own a few Abacus packages from various points and, to be honest, the current state of the art freeware is usually better. I would recommend anyone who is looking at an Abacus pack try looking for freeware equivalents first.Ian P.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Having just read this thread I can't help but notice that>noone actually owns this prodcuct and a couple do not even>seem to own anything from Abacus. A few pictures on a website>are hardly enough to prejudge such a package. My experience of>Abacus is that aircraft are below the standard expected by>many and I stopped buying them a long time ago with one>exception.Actually, I "own" the latest offering from Abacus in the sense that as a beta tester for their products, that is included as a 'fringe benefit.' ;)However, the point I've been trying to drive home - unsuccessfully it appears! - is that most of the folks who buy Abacus' products do so at their local retail outlet.They don't know that freeware, or indeed, even payware addons are available via the internet!Moreover, they don't know that sites such as AVSIM even exist, much less the hundreds of other sites that are available!These folks - who represent the largest segment of the FS marketplace - are the same ones who will "play the game" for a few months, then abandon FS for the next glitzy game to be released...

[Guest Gordius]

An interesting thought. Perhaps I am one of the lucky ones fortunate enough to see a wide selection of products in my local Game store here in the UK although indeed Abacus is often there too. They are obviously doing something right though or they would not be able to keep producing more aircraft/addons. Perhaps you are right I don't know.I just looked into my cupboard and found three offerings there from Abacus and all bought from a shop.European Enhanced Terrain which is pretty good especially if you cannot download mesh even though you might know it is available (that was me until this year due to only having access to a very slow connection making large downloads impossible).The other product I found was Helicopter Operations. Not my favourite addon but I thought the Eurocopter AS365 was good in most ways. Scenery that came with it is not bad either.Both stay in the cupboard gathering dust these days but if I ever want an AS365 that will certainly be out of the box again.And then there is FSDS. Excellent. Not on the PC right now but only because I haven't needed it for quite some time.Andrew BrownRoaring Thirtieshttp://www.gordiusfs.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[michal 44]

>Still... try the Tu154... Hmmm .. I have no doubt it is a very well done airliner.But I have rather strong aversion to anything Soviet/Russian (perhaps except their vodka and caviar!). If you knew some of my background you would understand why ;)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[duckbilled 310]

I think there is a little misunderstanding about what an "entertainment package" is or what is expected by the "plug and play crowd".I like payware aircraft that look and feel like payware aircraft similar to PMDG products but don't require a 50 page manual to get you in to the air. The Aerosim L-1011 and the Skydecks panels are a perfect representation of what I look for. Why? I don't have the time or patience to devote to one aircraft.Now, this ABACUS product is insulting if it is meant for my fs habits. It definitely looks worse than the default aircraft and it is far below the quality of most freeware including IFDG, SGA and POSKY aircraft.I think these products are intended for the individuals that buy a few add ons at Gamestop or Best Buy. They are advertised here because this is one of the major FS sites but I can't imagine anyone that is used to the quality of the currently available freeware spending money on this product.This is what I think the markets or in the FS world:1. Gamers - Individuals that don't spend time downloading freeware. They might buy and occasional add on but they don't tweak. The vast majority of people that purchase FS are probably in this category. This Abacus product is geared towards them.2. FS enthusiasts/addicts/hobbyists type 1 - I am one of these. I am looking for a complete FS experience from scenery to sound to aircraft. I like to fly to a variety of places in a variety of aircraft. I buy add ons and I download freeware. I gear my system towards FS and I spend time tweaking things. I think I am in the majority of the people that are active at the various fs sites.3. FS enthusiasts/addicts/hobbyists type 2 - These people are very similar to type 1 except they focus on a smaller segment of the FS experience. The may fly only a couple aircraft, sometimes high end payware. They may focus on one part of the world such a bush pilots or they may only fly GA aircraft. They may have anumber of aircraft but they stick to one for a while, master it and move on to something else.4. FS Developers - Individuals that paint, create and help make this great hobby even better.I guess the point I am trying to make is that I do consider FS a hobby - not a game. You don't have to buy ultra-complicated add ons to be considered a hobbyist. Nonetheless, I am also a connaisseur. I would never consider buying anything that didn't knock the socks off of its freeware alternative.

[Guest Erick_Cantu]

The assumption that simulating a modern aircraft requires more programming know-how than fully simulating an analogue one is simply erroneous, period, not only in terms of the knowledge required to make a given component work, but also the sheer volume of components a single FMS replaces.The FMS is not the single most complex system one could find themselves programming, there are plenty others on-par. As mentioned, this includes the navigation systems of old. These were NOT simple pieces of machinery. Simple in principle, perhaps, unlike an FMS, but not in operation and emulation.I mean no offense, but please, do not pass judgement in areas in which you have no idea what you are talking about.

[michal 44]

>The assumption that simulating a modern aircraft requires>more programming know-how than fully simulating an analogue>one is simply erroneousAs someone who writes simulation software (not for the gaming industry) I must say automation or no automation, digital or analog -both can be taken to whatever degree of complexity devloper has budget/data/time to take it.But ultimately it is about the shear size of your code - provided of course you know how to write terse, quality software. At the moment I would risk a guess that no other add-on for FS9 can match the code size of PMDG's 747.Michael J.