January 15, 200620 yr Dont disgrace the E-170 by releasing a freware version...this aircraft deserve to be released as a paywre version complete with an FMC and all the goodies....I had a chance to ride on one two weeks ago from IND to PHL it was a very nice experience.Rumor has it that Feelthere is going to do this after they get the 777 completed.
January 15, 200620 yr whats wrong with freeware?checkout the dreamwings ERJ170. Not only is it the only 170 model i know of, but also its one of the sweetest models i know. ;) Chase Barnett
January 15, 200620 yr "checkout the dreamwings ERJ170. Not only is it the only 170 model i know of, but also its one of the sweetest models i know. ;)"Thanks for mention of the Dreamwings 170. Although my FDE was a small piece of the project, I am glad some don't feel that freeware "disgraces" the 170 :)-John
January 15, 200620 yr >Dont disgrace the E-170 by releasing a freware version...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Dar...0/blinkblag.gif Quote from MS Flight Team Lead: "We’ve made some guesses"
January 15, 200620 yr >>>>>Dont disgrace the E-170 by releasing a freware version...Dont disgrace the E-170 by releasing a freware version...<<<<
January 15, 200620 yr Agreed ... an apology is necessary IMHO :-bang regardsEd http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/edley.gifAMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 128Mb DDR Nvidia 6600GT PCI Express, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant My FS Videos
January 15, 200620 yr "Dont disgrace the E-170 by releasing a freware version..."A comment like that is what the community has come to. With the exception of precious few who still contribute extremely high fidelity aircraft, scenery and utilities everything has gone payware.But, alas, as brutally direct and misguided as that statement was, I believe that the writer was trying to convey that he wants the ERJ-170 in its full glory complete with ALL the bells and whistles and not just an external visual model with an incomplete panel. "Disgrace" is undoubtedly the wrong choice of wording here. BUT, in the same token if the writer believes that a visual model only (even with great flight dynamics), or a semi-functional VC or 2D panel does not do the aircraft true justice then I see his point despite his poor choice of words. The fact is there are NO high-fidelity transport-category aircraft and panel combos (in the spirit of today's state-of-the-art) available for free anymore and THAT'S the disgrace and NOT the magnificant efforts of the few freeware contributors who still find the time to donate their enourmous talents to the community with no request for recompense save a kind word or two.Money indeed makes the world go round even if that world happens to be virtual...the money is still real!
January 15, 200620 yr >The fact is there are NO high-fidelity transport-category>aircraft and panel combos (in the spirit of today's>state-of-the-art) available for free anymoreMike, ever heard of Project Tupolev's Tu-154? It has a high fidelity panel with all bells and whistles including authentic Russian navigation equipment, custom autopilot, custom hydraulics, custom fuel system, weather radar with all modes, even terrain scan, full realistic TCAS implementation, FDE with weather dependant variables like runway friction and engine perfomance, special stabilizer logic to overcome FS9's default trim, special joystick configuration and much, much more. This is freeware, so please do make a general statement like that. I've seen many freeware offerings, that put their payware counterpart to shame. Ironknuckle's DC-9 is vastly inferion to Hilmerby's DC-9, PT Tu-154 is vastly superior to IGFly's Tu-154, Fandas Dash-8 (freeware version) is vastly superior to PSS's version and I could go on.
January 15, 200620 yr Daniel:I will continue to make "general" statements like that when they are correct. You're talking Tu-154 and I am talking aicraft that I actually see flying. A319, A320, A330, A340, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777-200 /300 /400, MD-80, MD-90, MD-11, B707, DC-8... care to point me towards those too??? I'm sure the Tu-154 is very nice and detailed and is a jem of a title... but I'm talking mainstream aircraft attributed to airlines that "most" fly. With the exception of the freeware ERJ-135 aircraft/panel released for FS2000 and FS2002, which has since been upadated to PIC-ERJ I can't think of any. AND when I say "state-of-the-art". I mean 2D, 3D and full systems AND FMC (or IRS as applicable). I am already aware of Lonny Payne's 757 panel which is pretty good in its own right.Your talking DC-9 and Tu-154...I'm talking the rest!
January 15, 200620 yr Ok, so you see DC-8's flying but you don't see DC-9's? Strange part of the world you must be living.Regarding the Airbus series, I don't know any decent offering payware of freeware, maybe with exception of the payware SSW A310. The B747 has got a nice rendition with IFly's 747 with a functioning FMS. The B757 and 767 had also good freeware options with Lonny Payne's panel. Are they as good as PMDG and Level-D models? Surely not, but they are not crap either.And your statement was not talking about "aircraft we see" but simply about the lack of quality of today's freeware community and this is simply a false statement. That said, let's agree to disagree...
January 15, 200620 yr >>>Dont disgrace the E-170 by releasing a freware version...this>aircraft deserve to be released as a paywre version complete>with an FMC and all the goodies....>>I had a chance to ride on one two weeks ago from IND to PHL it>was a very nice experience.>>Rumor has it that Feelthere is going to do this after they get>the 777 completed.And to be of excellent quality, it should be priced at a minimum of $49.95. :-laugh1
Create an account or sign in to comment