Aerobask Eclipse NG released

[ryanbatc 12,819]

I don't have it yet but when I get it expect the usual mini screenshot review :)

http://store-x-plane-org.3dcartstores.com/Eclipse-550-NG_p_593.html

[OneWhoKnocks53 51]

The avionics are not accurate to the rw counterpart, but looks like an impressive package however.  The Dynon touch system coupled with the gtn's look incredible!  Check Catstrators's yt channel to see a flight in the beta version.  At $40usd, I'm in.

[ryanbatc 12,819]

The rw avionics is Avidyne right?  Either way I'm excited..

oh wait it's the AVIO suite if I recall

[OneWhoKnocks53 51]

1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

The rw avionics is Avidyne right?  Either way I'm excited..

It's AVIO.  But the Dynon looks to be more capable anyway, and more widely used in the experimental market.

[ryanbatc 12,819]

Agreed.  My mini review is up at the avsim screenshot forum:

 

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Nobody's mentioning FPS performance, so I will...

Without turning down any of the sliders, or unclicking any feature,  I am getting 17-22 FPS in the cockpit, and in Outside View, 28-40 FPS.

The sounds are awesome, the cockpit is slick, as well as the avionics, and most happy to add this beaut to my hangar.

This will certainly become my main go-to....

 

Shadows are the best I have seen on any plane within XP11.  Not any 'course' jags.  Cockpit animation is very smooth, and if you choose to run with the one low rez skin, you can gain almost 10 FPS just in that choice.

 

 

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

`I found out what a great FPS sucker downer, the shadow.lua script is.  For some reason, I was going from 22, down to 8 FPS!

I thought on a hunch to remove that script from the Lua Engine, and then reloaded the engine...lo and behold, I now have 38 FPS in cockpit, and over 40-45 in outside view.  That shadow.lua script screws with XP11....it's now gone....

[Jimm 437]

I can look the other way, in terms of differences in avionics as the Aerobask version is just as profesional and clean.  As for the fps, all i can say is that this is what we may expect in the future for new releases from Aerobask.  The Panthera is beyond awesome, but it is a framerate killer as well.  If I average 30fps, I count myself fortunate.  I planned on getting the eclipse, but I'm still on the fence if the fps is the same or worse than the Panthera.  In terms of modelling, both aircraft have set the bar now for exquisite detail and textures.  The GTN750 is a blessing, but with all the touch capability, I have to wonder if that's what's using up more resources?

[Cellinsky 15]

I have the Panthera. Its an outstanding model for sure. It looks and flys well and the avionics are top notch. However loading times for me are insane (more than 2 minutes average). Once loaded I get 10 frames less than the default 737. I have 25 average, so it matters to me. Does anybody own both planes and can provide a direct comparison in terms of performance?

[CaptCWGAllen 49]

Beautiful plane but eats frame rate for me too 30 average down to 22/23. Also have an issue depending on the angle that I view through the windshield (using TIR) of the windshield turning light blue opaque (very disturbing especially on final!)

Cheers

Peter 

[alexcolka 183]

This plane is wonderful an impressive jump in quality since the Victory. Indeed average fps 21-26 inside, if you turn on maps on the GTN lowers a couple of frames, eye candy but costly. Didn't tried the lower res textures, 10 fps gain is tempting.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

I haven't bought this yet due to a lack of spare time in the evening lately, but I will.

I would expect this to be largely similar to the Panthera in terms of FPS and I have no trouble with that release at all, but then, I'm typically set up to get about 55 - 45 fps on average with default aircraft or lightweight payware, holding a solid 60 fps if in a 'light' location. The Panthera has an impact on that, but not more than I would expect with all that glass.

I think the trouble becomes if a user is already struggling to maintain 25 or 30 fps. At that point the added impact of the aircraft is certainly going to be felt.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Typo...'course' should have been, 'coarse'.  

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

1 hour ago, alexcolka said:

This plane is wonderful an impressive jump in quality since the Victory. Indeed average fps 21-26 inside, if you turn on maps on the GTN lowers a couple of frames, eye candy but costly. Didn't tried the lower res textures, 10 fps gain is tempting.

The more I fly this, and spend time using the features (learning as I go...sip coffee, read manuals, slide into the cockpit...) am really enjoying this purchase. No glaring bugs, or fatal errors for their first version release.  I don't find running with the low-rez skin to be offensive to the eyes, BUT...BUT, they need to PLEASE, remove the 'Low Rez' graphics just aft of the wings.  That would make me not want to run with that skin.  Hopefully they will read this, and remove that graphic element.

All in all, I highly recommend this plane.  Great avionics, and not too badly, an FPS premium, for what is available to you. At least, I don't think so.

[ryanbatc 12,819]

fps for XP11 in general are lower for me, but two things are contributing.  My RAM is low, only 8 GB, and XP11 - as well as my other running apps, frequently uses all of it.  My gtx 970 is low on vram, also frequently used up completely.  So I just lower my autogen settings to fly the payware acft and that helps.  With the Eclipse I can get about 28 fps with ZL18/16 ortho like in the screenshot review, and maybe 23 in SoCal when I fly on Pilot Edge.