Vertex website is Live!

[Sean Moloney 102]

I appreciate the passion shown in this thread. The worst thing would be if nobody was saying anything!

I'm still working on the manuals, they're the last big thing to do prior to release. Bill posted some links to the real life DA62 and G1000 manuals in the second post of this thread. The checklists in the DA62 POH can be used with no deviations for the majority of procedures.

There are also a few little things that need tidying up so the DA62 will definitely not be released this weekend. I'm aiming for next weekend but that is a tentative release date!

Sean Moloney

Vertx

Edited December 8, 2018 by Sean Moloney
spelling mistakes

[jimcarrel 688]

Well now, Here's to Next weekend! (fingers crossed).

[Lenny777 299]

10 hours ago, robert young said:

I have nothing whatever to do with Vertx, no vested interest, and have been retired for over two years. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting or supporting whatever Sean is doing. However I must say your post is unreasonable. You clearly have no idea at all regarding what is possible now and what was possible before, except at great expense, enormous development time and at a price that would be untenable for the customer. The T Duke was tested exhaustively by a hugely experienced pilot with thousands of hours on the engines the T Duke used. Given the limited scope of what was possible at the time, he felt we overcame the majority of the very limited parameters available then.

Your post is typical of someone who is demanding to the hilt but has no appreciation of what goes into designing and producing a sim aircraft. It is probably somewhat different in the US but in the UK the use of Sids and Stars by GA pilots is so minimal as to be insignificant. In fact in over 40 years of flying and involvement in aviation I don't think I met a single GA pilot, twin or single prop, who ever had to use, or would choose to use a Sid or Star by default. The Diamond Twin is a STICK AND RUDDER aircraft, designed for flying in mainly VFR airspace or non-airway routes. It is a low performance twin and the very last priority in simulating it would be concerns about avionics or databases appropriate to a passenger jet or corporate jet.

I recognise that you are not alone here. There seems to be a trend away from stick and rudder BASIC skllls into a world of procedural flying in which handling skills, basic aerodynamics, stalls, potential spins, and other REAL safety aspects are forgotten and replaced by an obsession with databases, software, and all sorts of hand-holding devices which detract from the skill of actually flying.

If you are so concerned about the integrity of a twin prop addon, then I would think the priority concern would be "does it fly well"? "Does it feel right"? "Does it sound right"? "Does it look right"? "Is it flyable on a modest computer"? To me these are far more important than a database. You are not flying a database. You are flying an aircraft.

Over the years I've bought and flown a host of aircraft that have all sorts of sophisticated gizmos, gauges, displays, lighting, nav packages etc etc, but very few of them feel right when flying them. And by the way, developers don't leave things out because it is their "modus operandi". They have to make a choice between added development time and expense (which has increased three-fold in the the last five years due to the very demands you expect to be fulfilled) and balance that with the demand to claw back investment of time and money, and to price at a competitive rate. 

If you don't approve of what is in the package, then I suggest you moderate your comments and quietly withdraw, rather than making demands as though you were about to buy a $xxxxxx motion sim. It's just a small aircraft evidently designed with a great deal of care, time and effort. I have no idea what it will be like, but one thing I do know is that the LAST thing anyone with an interest in flying this kind of aircraft would complain about was a database.

Cheer up.

 

I'll leave aside your condescending post for the moment. Given your rational why not just fly bi-planes and model simple "stick and rudder" planes then? Obviously "does it fly wel" is a naive notion because "does it fly well" and concurrently having good avionics are not mutually exclusive. You seem to suggest they are which is terribly naive in this day and age of modeling flyability, aesthetics, functionality and being as close to real world systems as possible.

"If you don't approve of what is in the package, then I suggest you moderate your comments and quietly withdraw, rather than making demands"

The poster had a criticism about how the G1000 could be as functional as possible i.e., the ability to update the database. You seem to suggest his criticism warranted a petulent response of moderating his comments and to 
"quietly withdraw" which I find extraordinarily obnoxious. Are you thinking the developer cannot take some criticism because of the poster's  desire for a better G1000?  Maybe you think the developer is thin-skinned, which given his posting on this thread I don't find at all. In fact he seems to welcome the input from diverse posters.

 

"There seems to be a trend away from stick and rudder BASIC skllls into a world of procedural flying in which handling skills, basic aerodynamics, stalls, potential spins, and other REAL safety aspects are forgotten and replaced by an obsession with databases, software, and all sorts of hand-holding devices which detract from the skill of actually flying."

 

After he has developed the stick and rudder "BASIC" (your capitalization) skills, or for a moment, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has, what then? Status quo? You see, when I was flying Bruce Artwick's Sublogic flight sim on my old Apple II, then Commodore 64, and when it developed through it's various incarnations by MS, there were always these "demanding" folks asking for more than vector graphics, or scant panels with minimum gauges. They wanted traffic ai, photoreal textures, ATC, the latest or at least contemporary avionics. And there were always folks like you who would act as if any "demands" they made were to be profoundly excoriated and edited as if they held the sacred trust of what constituted "demands" or not. Invariably they would default to their "does it fly well" axiom which appeared to suggest that all those other things were supercilious. Thankfully, the developers took the "demands" and continued to develop and model not just the "does it fly well" components but driving the sim to realisms I never imagined would happen using my Apple II and C64 and those first incarnations.

My suggestion to you is ease up on the pontification and allow the people to make the "demands" because you never know in those "demands" there may be the creation of a better product. 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Lenny777

[WarpD 824]

Wow... relax everyone.  These are opinions and desires.  These are not laws.  The addon will be whatever the developer decides to make it.  That's how it always was, that's how it always will be.  You decide to either purchase it, or not.  

[N400QW 205]

3 hours ago, Sean Moloney said:

I appreciate the passion shown in this thread. The worst thing would be if nobody was saying anything!

Sean Moloney

Vertx

Sean, we appreciate your efforts and hope only for the best in your effort to provide what appears to be an excellent product, You can't please everyone.....so enjoy the ride.😎

[Skywolf 992]

Everyone enjoy the weekend.

Please don't derail or lock this happy thread.

Go fly virtually and if you can fly in real

Have fun

I for one am very grateful for @Sean Moloney for giving his update.  I have probably gone to his website countless time this week hoping to see the release.  Now, I can relax till next weekend.  This weekend is busy anyway with family errands but next weekend is quite open and looking forward to the release.

And the coolest part in @Sean Moloney post is "The checklists in the DA62 POH can be used with no deviations for the majority of procedures."

How cool is that - no deviations....this is gonna be so much fun.

Cheers everyone

🍻

 

Yah...what a great plane....love the perks of flying; oh well my career is all computer screens and numbers...hahaha

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Skywolf

[markadeane 272]

1 hour ago, Skywolf said:

@Sean Moloney

@Sean Moloney

🍻

 

 

 

 

This promo pic cracks me up every time I see it. They got 4 models from an agency, threw in a pilots outfit and kinda just went for it!

[shivers9 1,174]

6 hours ago, markadeane said:

This promo pic cracks me up every time I see it. They got 4 models from an agency, threw in a pilots outfit and kinda just went for it!

Wait.....You mean we each get 3 ladies like that with this release. Sign me up!!

[robert young 2,897]

9 hours ago, Lenny777 said:

And there were always folks like you who would act as if any "demands" they made were to be profoundly excoriated and edited as if they held the sacred trust of what constituted "demands" or not. Invariably they would default to their "does it fly well" axiom which appeared to suggest that all those other things were supercilious. Thankfully, the developers took the "demands" and continued to develop and model not just the "does it fly well" components but driving the sim to realisms I never imagined would happen using my Apple II and C64 and those first incarnations.

My suggestion to you is ease up on the pontification and allow the people to make the "demands" because you never know in those "demands" there may be the creation of a better product. 

It's a question of what is a reasonable demand. And the poster we refer to made all sorts of other statements that were witheringly critical on past efforts without much insight into the challenges at the time - just to put the boot in. Actually, most developers add new features not because someone is demanding them, but because they want to improve things anyway.There is nothing wrong with making requests or expressing disappointment, but writing a whole essay peppered with negative stuff just because it is not possible to include a database on one product that clearly is a labour of love in all other respects, is not reasonable.

As for the stick and rudder stuff, I never suggested that equals a post-war biplane or anything similar. There is a middle way. I don't think I said anything obnoxious. By quietly withdraw, I meant make his point/request and leave it at that, rather than a long rant about other things which were clearly designed to be a general slagging-off fest to bolster the original demand.

[shfinne 1]

Hi 

just got :-((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Please correct me if I got this wrong

I just got the new the good looking Vertex Da62

I pay for all 13 Airac cycles from Navigraph 

And Now do i need to pay additional 20 USD every F... year  to some ..... to get access to my already pay for  Airac cycles to use it in this G1000 version 

Yes I got the GTN 750/650 and is stuck in demo data not really happy with that one to, but this is worse, here is there an interface to a dynamic Airac 

 

[bean_sprout 1,201]

It would be a fun project for Sean to integrate the GTN 750.  That guy has it made.  lol

Cheers
bs

[Ron Attwood 3,464]

What's a GTN 750? Sounds like a motorcycle.

[Les Parson 99]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 11:37 AM, robert young said:

I have nothing whatever to do with Vertx, no vested interest, and have been retired for over two years. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting or supporting whatever Sean is doing. However I must say your post is unreasonable. You clearly have no idea at all regarding what is possible now and what was possible before, except at great expense, enormous development time and at a price that would be untenable for the customer. The T Duke was tested exhaustively by a hugely experienced pilot with thousands of hours on the engines the T Duke used. Given the limited scope of what was possible at the time, he felt we overcame the majority of the very limited parameters available then.

Your post is typical of someone who is demanding to the hilt but has no appreciation of what goes into designing and producing a sim aircraft. It is probably somewhat different in the US but in the UK the use of Sids and Stars by GA pilots is so minimal as to be insignificant. In fact in over 40 years of flying and involvement in aviation I don't think I met a single GA pilot, twin or single prop, who ever had to use, or would choose to use a Sid or Star by default. The Diamond Twin is a STICK AND RUDDER aircraft, designed for flying in mainly VFR airspace or non-airway routes. It is a low performance twin and the very last priority in simulating it would be concerns about avionics or databases appropriate to a passenger jet or corporate jet.

I recognise that you are not alone here. There seems to be a trend away from stick and rudder BASIC skllls into a world of procedural flying in which handling skills, basic aerodynamics, stalls, potential spins, and other REAL safety aspects are forgotten and replaced by an obsession with databases, software, and all sorts of hand-holding devices which detract from the skill of actually flying.

If you are so concerned about the integrity of a twin prop addon, then I would think the priority concern would be "does it fly well"? "Does it feel right"? "Does it sound right"? "Does it look right"? "Is it flyable on a modest computer"? To me these are far more important than a database. You are not flying a database. You are flying an aircraft.

Over the years I've bought and flown a host of aircraft that have all sorts of sophisticated gizmos, gauges, displays, lighting, nav packages etc etc, but very few of them feel right when flying them. And by the way, developers don't leave things out because it is their "modus operandi". They have to make a choice between added development time and expense (which has increased three-fold in the the last five years due to the very demands you expect to be fulfilled) and balance that with the demand to claw back investment of time and money, and to price at a competitive rate. 

If you don't approve of what is in the package, then I suggest you moderate your comments and quietly withdraw, rather than making demands as though you were about to buy a $xxxxxx motion sim. It's just a small aircraft evidently designed with a great deal of care, time and effort. I have no idea what it will be like, but one thing I do know is that the LAST thing anyone with an interest in flying this kind of aircraft would complain about was a database.

Cheer up.

 

I always hoped a developer could provide 10 or 20 minute YouTube video to show us non-developer, customers what actually is involved in producing a first rate aircraft from concept to commercial release. A2A does this to a degree, but they have an extraordinary advantage by having access to the actual aircraft. 

[Aussieflyer38 13]

Just got this beautiful plane today, was reading the manual but got interrupted and had to bail out, now I can't find it. Anyone help me to locate it please. Thanks

 

Don

[Bill Griffith 160]

Mine is located at - "C:\Users\????\Documents\Prepar3D v4 Add-ons\Vertx DA62\Vertx\DA62-P3D4\AutoPlay\Docs\Vertx DA62 User Guide.pdf"

Bill