>If there are going to be pax and fa's then at least get the>systems down pat first. remember guys this is a SIMULATOR not>a game. i think people have taken this simulator to a level it>wasn't meant to be. it is a training tool and a good one at>that especially when combined with a organizatin such as>VATSIMWith all due respect to how you use your FS, you seem to have taken this "sim" to the level it wasn't meant to be. It's an entertainment title, plain and simple. I co run a VA so I can appreciate taking it up to a higher degree of realism than what it was intended for, but it's wrong to "assume/expect" other users to use it the same was as you do.As stated it is much easier to texture and animate a few polygons to represent a visual aspect than it is to code systems.Hopefully it will get to a level that all users will get what they want out of it 100%.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

One of the greatest things about this hobby is that in quite a few instances we do get to have our "cake and eat it too":-)Today we can have accurate cockpit operation AND eye candy. Someone mentioned our Citation X and the female passenger as a first in FS. While it may have been a first in the Corporate Jet type, I recall, the F1 421 had a buxom female copilot and no one complained that the systems weren't accurate enough.:-)Just trying to point out that as we all move forward, it should not be a matter of either/or but rather either/and:-)

>>With all due respect to how you use your FS, you seem to have>taken this "sim" to the level it wasn't meant to be. It's an>entertainment title, plain and simple. And thats not exactly correct either. Microsoft incorporates real life data bases such as navigation, airports, and terrain. These data bases do make the sim worthwhile for training purposes and elevate it past an entertainment title, although it's marketed as an entertainment tile.At the same time, MS works with 3rd party vendors (freeware & payware) during the creation of upcoming flight simulations, because they are well aware that 3rd parties add improved levels of realism for those who desire them.L.Adamson

You guys ar eright too in your opinion. Like I said though, my comments are just my opinion. I know I can;t have it my way all the time. Darnit! But in the end we all share a great hobby and its the programmers what make this push realism to the limit FS will let them. I thank all the devs for doing what they do and will continue to support them........until my visa says no anyway. On the comment that stating that I might not know how much work it goes into programming, I do. I have performed some in depth beta testing in the past and after I was done with the dev I had a whole new respect for that side of the FS world.

I whole-heartedly agree with you Monsoon.There should be wing views!!!!Hope this is helpful.Peter Sydney Australia

I never tried the systems of that female copilot, so I can't be a judge on them ;)But I fully agree with the OP that all too often functionality is glossed over these days in favour of making things look nice.And many users (even those considering themselves "hardcore") seem to be wanting that. The complaints if a rivetline on the fuselage is a few pixels off or the cabin interior is the wrong shade of pink seem to me to be far louder and more violent than the ones if a gauge for some rarely used functionality isn't quite functional.

So true!Andreas

I just loved the babe in the FSD Super Cub. She would have been one of the first :-)Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

Thanks Mark. I thought I was the only guy that felt that way :-) .Doug

Shad, Trust me, after making a model and now working on gauges. It is more complex debugging a perfect PFD than making a picture perfect virtual cabin. Maybe simple gauges are not that easy, but my proof is seeing so many beautiful models that are for free, but not so many C++ panels.

Welp, my take on all this is ... whoa there, big fella!Yes, eye candy is nice, for a little while. After the umpteenth time looking at I go back to actually flying the plane. For that I prefer a 2d cockpit view as I generally use the minimized mini panel anyway. All the eye candy goes out the window because I'm trying to fly somewhere, not watch the flight attendant walk up and down the aisle. Hardly know there's an aisle to walk. I really want (and demand, sort of) a FUNCTIONAL plane, one which can be flown with reasonable effort. Edit: Boy, just see the minority view here. I can hear it all now.:D

Feelthere have overlooked some significant and inherent failings in all of there products to date and judging my issues on their forums it doesn't look like things are going to improve.Support was once good and fair, now they are more concerned with answers such as "search the forum" or "sign your post" or if all else fails people are totally ignored.There Navdata is below poor, it is incomplete, extremely difficult to add procedures to, those talented enough to be able to do so are even now being ignored/complained to by Victor despite him almost begging people to add to the procedures to make the database better, of late it has become worse.Repaints, just look at the T7 a very well regarded painter has posted to the effect that no repaints will be made for it due to the current paint kit.Nothing is finished, everything is done on the cheap. (No FSUIPC intergration, they use WILCO!!!) Whilst every company needs to expand, expanding some things whilst not others is surely going to be there downfall (Or maybe it will give them a Kick up the A*S) As for the original question, it is all money, money, money and nothing else from companies like Feelthere. Luckily some of the big ones are just not like them, they are big for a good reason.Garry

Garry,Since you have a personal vendetta against feelthere and you grab any opportunity to bash them it's irrevelant what you think about FT. You had an issue on their forum why they banned you from there (in fact I don't remeber feelThere banning anyone else) and I'm sure you are looking for every single opportunity to turn people from them. I'm glad to see the Legeacy got some nice feedback AFTER it's been released from people who actually bought it. I'm sure you are not one of them so I wonder how can you express your oppinion about it. People are looking for feedback about the plane to decide to buy it or not. Your bloodthirsty post will not help them. I'm sure you like to see feelthere going out of business (just like many of us celebrated the fact they banned you from their forum) but if you search any developer's forum you'll see guys like yourself wishing the end of the certain company however if your wish would come true we would be here without payware companies.I don't have the Legacy (yet) however I suggest the people who wish to buy it to make sure to read feedbacks from people who actually bought the product not from a person who with his attitude forced a company (after several request made by other forum members) to ban him from the forum to be able to maintain a professional level support forum.Qlover

>Feelthere have overlooked some significant and inherent>failings in all of there products to date and judging my>issues on their forums it doesn't look like things are going>to improve.>>Support was once good and fair, now they are more concerned>with answers such as "search the forum" or "sign your post" or>if all else fails people are totally ignored.>>There Navdata is below poor, it is incomplete, extremely>difficult to add procedures to, those talented enough to be>able to do so are even now being ignored/complained to by>Victor despite him almost begging people to add to the>procedures to make the database better, of late it has become>worse.>>Repaints, just look at the T7 a very well regarded painter has>posted to the effect that no repaints will be made for it due>to the current paint kit.>>Nothing is finished, everything is done on the cheap. (No>FSUIPC intergration, they use WILCO!!!) >>Whilst every company needs to expand, expanding some things>whilst not others is surely going to be there downfall (Or>maybe it will give them a Kick up the A*S) >>As for the original question, it is all money, money, money>and nothing else from companies like Feelthere. Luckily some>of the big ones are just not like them, they are big for a>good reason.>>>GarryThere is so much rubbish here in this post, it's not even worth responding to. Support at feel there is excellent, with Victor assembling all the bug reports for the just-released Legacy, which, as I've said before, is several steps above their ERJ 145 PIC.I don't see how you can say that the Legacy was done on the cheap. Here is a quick comparison to the original ERJ1) Original ERJ: poor ground handling and steering1a) Fixed on the Legacy2) Original ERJ: lower rez 2d and 3d panel2a) Fixed on the Legacy3) Original ERJ: Lousy framerates, especially in the virtual cockpit. 3a) Fixed on the Legacy: much improved framerates.4) Original ERJ: No IRS alignment possible, no weather radar, etc. 4a) Both now available on the Legacy.5) Original ERJ: no speed callouts.5a) Legacy: now available.6) Original ERJ: funky integration with fsuipc.6a) Legacy: works better7) Original ERJ: speed hold during cruise difficult.7a) Much improved on the Legacy. In addition, an autothrottle cheat available for long range cruise. 8) Original ERJ: Handflying serviceable/not great.8a) Legacy: Handflying much improved on the Legacy. etc. etc. etc. I'm never shy in criticizing addon developers, but let's give credit where credit is due. ricardo

Hi Ricardo. Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to dis FT. The Legacy does seem to be a very good plane. But all those things you mentioned to me sounds like UPGRADES of the previous plane. Hence my point. This plane seems to be an upgrade and not a start from scrath plane. I am guessing here but I bet a LOT of the programming fromt he ERJ was transferred to the Legacy. I might be wrong but just my guess. If any of you are wondering if you should buy this plane. My answer is yes. It IS a very good plane. I just had my opinion about the previous buyers of the ERJ paying a price like that for a plane that SEEMS to be more of an upgrade. If i thought the plane wasn't that good I wouldn't have bought it.