Ok aerd..thanks for clearing that up, still though thank god for AVSIM at least getting very nice liveries from there is easier..I know that the bird is out for only a few days,(and all in all am enjoying it,even with the bugs here and there) but i would have liked to see the whole project being managed by Feelthere..

Let me help you see it 3 times smoother then (I've just tried and this shows the universality of the single VC section)1) start FS9, load the LDS767 and go in the VC. Slew up around 5000 ft to be confortable, full throttle, and resume flight (un-slew).2) do some pitch up/down and roll left/right and pay attention to the EADI refresh rate3) exit FS9, backup your panel.cfg file4) start notepad.exe and edit the panel.cfg file:near the end of the file, delete all 3 VC sections, rename [Vcockpit02] to [Vcockpit01], and then commnent out the B767PedestalVC gauge line. You should only have this at the end of the file:[Window10]background_color=0,0,0size_mm=1280, 410position=0visible=1ident=MAIN_PANELnomenu=1gauge00=LVLDB767Afds!Afds,0,0//--------------------------------------------------------[Vcockpit01]file=B767_vc1a.bmpBackground_color=0,0,0size_mm=512,512visible=1pixel_size=512texture=$lvld_b6_crtgauge00=LVLDVCB767eicas!EICAS, 145,184,176,162gauge01=LVLDVCB767leicas!LEICAS, 178,350,176,162gauge02=LVLDVCB767eadiL!EADI, 3,3,215,181gauge03=LVLDVCB767ehsiL!EHSI, 323,0,189,218gauge04=LVLDVCB767eadiR!EADI, 0,349,179,152gauge05=LVLDVCB767ehsiR!EHSI, 358,333,154,179//gauge06=LVLDVCB767PedestalVC!ControlValves, 329,222,182,106gauge07=LVLDVCB767Afds!VCMasterSwitch, 3,223,128,122gauge08=LVLDVCB767Afds!FOBrakePress, 228,0,85,85[Default View]X=0Y=0SIZE_X=8191SIZE_Y=2500Day=255,255,255Night=196,196,196Luminous=201,64,645) save the modification, exit notepad.exe and start FS9 again.6) after loading the LDS767 in 2D panel first, switch to the VC, and do the same as above7) compare, and enjoy!Let us all know about your results!

We all would have liked to see FeelThere releasing the product on their own or at least with a more reputable distributor.I am not sure why people still need distributors nowadays anyway? You can host your own server for $40/month with unlimited bandwidth and I am sure that the developer who has managed to code a fairly complex airliner, would be able to download and install and fairly simple shopping cart with a credit card processor. I did and it took me 2 hours to sell products online.Distributing CD is another topic, although a few more international FS distributors would have come to mind first - instead of Wilco, that apparently operates out of a garage in Belgium.Pat

Hi Raved,What's your point? If you think the prices are too high, well.... don't buy it. Simple as that.Have a nice day.

I think FeelThere and Wilco have bondings that go more from just 'Oh, can you..?' They may have some sort of Contract, Wilco may be funding FeelThere if they do this..or That..etc..I agree they should fly Solo, But it doesn't appear that simple.

"The single VC section is universally true, and is a concern of VC gauges refresh rate only. Other considerations like clarity is another topic."Well said Jean Luc. It is indeed a well known fact that a single VC entry improves VC gauge refresh rate for reasons you have stated. It is of course a balancing act when developer XYZ chooses to address refresh rate, clarity andor a multitude of gaugesubgauge sets for a complex panel. Such a panel will require XYZ developer to "trade off" or "balance out" the variables to obtain the desired result. No thinking developer would ignore the facts and intentionally handicap VC gauge refresh rates on a given project, but the same developer might choose the best "Balance" which will meet the requirements of the project. This is why a one VC entry is not always the highest and best approach for some developers:-)

Rayed -I pretty much agree with your post 100%. The FS payware community is rather poor compared to other gaming domains and everything is inflated much larger than it should be. I think you explained why fairly well in your post.And, now time to avoid the flames. :-)-Peter

I think Rayed makes some good points. if you get out of the FS world and see what is going on in other game communities, it is a bit different. For one, FS probably has the most payware and highest priced addons for the sim compared to some others. I design for the SIMS2 community and they get pretty pissy about charging for an addon although there are a lot of sites that do charge. As for actual designs, he is right, there are modelers that produce high quality models in a couple of days, ones that are very complex. If you play battlefield 2 there are quite a few GROUPS doing whole expansions for it for free and the modeling on most is superb and professional quality.As for the comment about an addon being buggy if it drags the performance down, very true, but think of this, the MakeMdl from MS has a poly limit, whereas many other games I design for don't.I for one don't have a problem paying for an addon, just invested a few hundred in addons for POSER and 3DSMax recently. It is all up to us, if you have a problem with it, vote with your wallet. After the bad experience with the caravan from feelthere, I'll probably never buy an addon from them again.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

>Rayed ->>I pretty much agree with your post 100%. The FS payware>community is rather poor compared to other gaming domains and>everything is inflated much larger than it should be. I think>you explained why fairly well in your post.>>And, now time to avoid the flames. :-)>>-PeterEconomies of scale - you can't compare a huge industry like FPS or RTS games to a niche product like flight simulation. Demand is lower, therefore cost has to be higher.

"If you play battlefield 2 there are quite a few GROUPS doing whole expansions for it for free"Do these guys have to go to companies like ATR, Cirrus, and Boeing to get the information they need to make accurate add-ons for Battlefield 2??? Is there anything out there in other markets that's simulating multi-million dollar devices and only charging $50 for it???I don't get where the mental disconnect is coming from. Not to slam anyone but there is diffidently some 'brain dead' comparisons going on here. Micheal you've been around awhile, go try and get me some information on a Gulfstream IV so I can model it in Flight Simulator. I want to know what every switch does and how the autopilot is modeled. You have to tell me how all the Avionics function in that aircraft at 31,000ft. To top that off document everything and for a manual the users will need. Then hang around the forums for support once we finish and release the model

Well, for starters, I think you'll find that a heck of a lot more people have access to information on an A320 than an M1 Abrams tank or especially a Challenger II. You can buy a book on how to fly one from Sporty's, Transair or even Ian Allen bookshops in the UK - the other requires government vetting and has various classification levels stamped all over it.Yes, it is easier to get accurate information for FS than it is a reasonably accurate military game. Ask Larry Bond about the reaction to Harpoon when the US Navy found out about it.On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree with what you say about developing times and costs. I'm quite heavily involved with beta testing these days and almost every time, the visual model is a tiny percentage of the work involved in getting a product onto the market. On the other hand, my fiancee make add-ons for Sims 2 and was knocking out two or three a day until she got bored! FS repaints, maybe. FS add-ons, definately not. There's no comparison between add-ons for something like RollerCoaster Tycoon or Sims and commercial quality add-ons for FS.The other major difference between developing for PC and for XBox, PS, GameCube, whatever is standardisation. There are literally billions of combinations of PC hardware and software, most supposedly built/written to standards but very often not meeting them when used together. Something that is blatantly obvious within seconds of a product being released really can go un-noticed by a beta team if none of that team have a specific software or hardware add-on installed. Without having every possible user as a beta tester, you're never going to cover all the bases. It really is that simple.Are more FS add-ons being released without being 100% complete? Yes. Primarily because the demands being placed on developers are becoming greater.Are more patches required? No, I don't think they are. I can pick two game boxes up from where I sit now which are absolutely unplayable at this time. One might get patched to work as it hasn't been out that long and it is absolutely riddled with bugs. The other has now been written off as a loss by its developer (Activision) and getting support from them is harder than getting hold of Lago is these days. :-(Ian P.

>I know Bill that you have enquire a couple times about this,>but let me reassure you that with FS9, the less VC sections,>the more often the sections will be updated.If your only concern is with one variable in the total equation then you are absolutely correct, Jean-Luc. There's no way around the math.Are you absolutely sure though that the sim only paints one VC entry per cycle, or does it paint all VC entries each cycle?That single issue aside however, you know as well as I do that it isn't the case that only one variable (gauge refresh) comes into play (as you have alluded to regarding gauge clarity) when the complete equation is considered...In some cases, a single VC entry is indeed the best solution. In other cases two might be the best solution when all factors are considered.BTW, there's a "Fatal Flaw" in your PMDG example, since it should be obvious to anyone that the apparent increase in gauge smoothness is more likely the result of not loading all the original gauges in the VC as it is to simply having a single VC entry... ;)

>>Is there anything out there in other markets that's simulating>multi-million dollar devices and only charging $50 for it???Just from our neighborhood.LOMAC, Pacific Fighters. There is a game called America's Army which is used by America's Army to bait people ;). It's free. Check it if you can. But let's leave the prices I already apologized and I fully understand where those are coming from. Tiny market against realtively high development costs = high prices>Everyone else on Rayed's side of the tracks, get close to an>Airbus A320 and then come talk to me... You can watch the>History Channel and do a few Google searches and come away>with enough info to build a decent game like 'Rome Total War'.No you won't. Let me explain, because we obviusly do not understand each other. You will only have enough data to start design of such game. Then the fun begins, starting from concept artists (very expensive usually) ending at beta team and QA team.No publisher will buy anything now only by looking at design, those days are long time gone. You need graphic engine, licensed (prices start at 20,000 for very poor ones) or written by yourself (takes years and hundreds of thousands if no more to develop), need to know how to model very complex AI (yes artificial intelligence along with all its fuzzy logic problems, interaction with environment, pathing, collsions etc.)You will have to know how to model high quality hi-res characters (a lot of them), then make lores version of those (along with normal maps and stuff), so it doesn't slow to a crawl, rig them for animation, add physics then pack everything into a game which is fun to play (scenario, story, dymanic campaigns, online play etc). I assure you that only asset management for a game of such complexity would give you headaches. In FS you get:a) graphics engine for free:( physics engine for free (assuming this exist in FS)c) 3D assets are very easy to model and manage, there is no complex animation at all (and data for those is not that hard to obtain, I make real models of airplanes for fun and parts I buy are 0.5 mm precise in the scale along with very detailed blueprints (yep I can get A320 too, I believe, wasn't interested in it cause I find it ugly ;)), I don't believe you need to measure real plane to model it in FS? What is max model poly count? )d) sound and other assets are rather marginal, of course I can imagine it is hard to obtain correct samples, but how many of them you need? Even if it is 100 or something is nowhere near average PC game uses.e) correct me if I am wrong but you don't have to program aerodynamics, power management and all other physical things model from scratch. You base things on FS model, because you have to?> But go and get me some detailed data on the Fly-By-Wire>systems of the A320.f) then we come to something which always made me wonder. All those systems really work in FS9 considering base game limitations? Is this level of complexity really needed to make sucesfull addon if end user only sees pretty model, working (or not) FMC and flight dynamics won't be anything close to real thing (among 1000s other things) no matter how hard we try? I managed to start most of complex planes in FS by semi randomly clicking buttons on the overhead panel. I never felt a smell of smoke while doing it, nor pain in my bottom when kicked by airline manager ;). I have seen people complaining about some addon cabin and instrument ligthing, because it was white instead of warm orange. Warm orange effect was achieved only on photographs just because photographer used a filter or wrong white balance or some other magic... Flying a boeing upside down, opening doors at FL320 etc, no problem, everything works and I am still flying (not that I find it fun doing it that way hehe). Not to mention that real view from average 737 is rather different from what you see in FS with it's panels and VCs (you can rent a hour in real simulator and see)I'd rather think that some of the resources could go into better QA and polishing the product, which average user like me would very appreciate.Sometimes I feel that maybe FS addons could use some old school game design (aka fun factor) and maybe then market would widen up? Just a tought. Things like ground crew, pusbacks, ####, even this silly girl I have seen flying as a passenger and drinking wine (forgot which addon it was, seen it on the screenshot) add more to fun factor and realism than some air bleed fly by wire anti ice flight recorder which only lights the lamp on the panel (because there is no way to model it in FS) and in reality if would blow up a plane if used incorrectly ;).>Put that on top of the fact you have a>smaller market to sell to when you feel you need to get paid>for the effort you put in. That's where we come to the point which I agree. Again, the whole point of this debate was that at this price range quality standards should be higher for end user. Some devs are already there, I believe.Sorry for my rant and being off topic again if it offended anyone, I am not knocking anyone down, far from it. I just see thing from different perspective being long time aviation fan (I didn't use FS till version 9 because it seemed too rough and simplistic for me) and a person with some little knowledge about game development processes. I also treat FS as I believe it should be treated, as a game, for fun, because it has the same in common with real planes as my honda civic with F1 car :)Peace and Merry Christmas!

The Eaglesoft Citation X is the aircraft you refer too in your post. The specific modeling and animations were indeed included for the "fun factor" and many do enjoy it.If you have the experience and knowledge that you outline here, then we suggest that you put together a team of individuals with the skill and talent required to produce a realistic addon for MSFS, test, retest, and release it at ANY price be it high or low, and we believe you will quickly see why MSFS addon prices are what you see in todays market:-) For example our recent GA Cirrus SR20 G2 required 14 months of development.Looking forward to your first MSFS release:-)Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :-)

Glad to see you guys aren't afraid to say Merry Christmas...Anyway back to it, Rayed we need you to make a Gulfstream and A320 series with all that you described above... I'm sure Ron and others can guide you in how to get started in the business side of things. From the sounds of it you have some great ideas. You are very correct in your statement that all the systems users aren't going to notice anyway don't have to be fully addressed (FBW for example). From the sounds of it you have the right connections to put a great team together with some awesome visual artist. I'd actually join you on this team myself. If what your telling me is correct there's a lot of useful techniques that can be carried over... Let's get a beautiful A320 and Gulfstream built that rivals PMDG's 747 visually. We'll need to build an FMS and FMC for both planes but everything else we could cut corners based on what FS will let us do. I know some guys that do great flight dynamics so we