PaulFWatts

Vertex website is Live!

Recommended Posts

Well we don't even have a release on this airplane and so far we have been able to insult the Dev, we have seen the Beta Testers called liars and today we have even seen the former company, RealAir insulted. I don't know if it is a new low for us but it must be in the bottom 10 for sure.

Personally, I think I get what Vertx is trying to do here. They just want a good solid DA-62 platform to build on using custom code outside of the P3d sim. I think this is what LM has been suggesting for several years now. If everyone would take a deep breath and relax we could get on with the project at hand.

To Sean....all of the above sins can be forgiven, but, looking over your nice website, I did not see any mention of a "head" (Potty)! How can you even think of a new release of a modern airplane without a potty?! I just simply can not fly with out having a potty on board!! 😁

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Did somebody say vertx is planning on doing a DA42 as well at some point?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Reuben Getz said:

Frankly, it's a shame that Vertx is following the old modus operandi of it's predecessor Realair by not fully implementing certain aspects of an otherwise well-modeled simulation.  Consider Realair's very last product, the Turbine Duke, a simulation which despite excellent detail nevertheless possessed VERY unrealistic turboprop modeling.  Why Realair even considered compromising a product with such explicit shortcomings in spite of other achievements with the simulation is beyond comprehension. 

Unfortunately now, history is repeating itself with Vertx and the DA-42.  I'm sorry, but it's simply inexcusable that Sean Moloney is trying to market a G1000 simulation that utilizes P3D's default database instead of a properly updated Airac cycle.  Expecting customers to pay for a dual subscription to both Navigraph AND FSAerodata, yet still not being able to implement SIDS and STARS, is simply inexcusable in my personal opinion.  I won't compromise on a proper Garmin GTN series simulation with my collection of G/A aircraft, nor do I have to.  And I'm certainly not going to compromise by purchasing a simulation with a 'fake' G1000 avionics package that requires me to incur significant additional expenditure just to have a current but crippled Airac cycle.  

Perhaps it would be more prudent for Vertx to abort this release until such a time when a fully modeled simulation package can be produced rather than propagate Realair's legacy of coming up short.  

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.

 

Edited by robert young
  • Like 15
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Reuben Getz said:

I'm sorry, but it's simply inexcusable that Sean Moloney is trying to market a G1000 simulation that utilizes P3D's default database instead of a properly updated Airac cycle.

I'm sorry, but I find it quite admirable that Sean Moloney is trying to market a G1000 simulation that utilizes P3D's default database instead of requiring the separate purchase of an updated Airac cycle.

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent post by @robert young

I am gonna try to veer this tread back to DA62.

To all the beta testers - have you guys beta tested in VR.  I think I have watched all the real life DA62 youtube videos available; I am just stunned at the space between 2 people in the front.  No more shoulder to shoulder rubbing.  It is so roomy.  

Already told my wife about this is the last flightsim addon for the year - Christmas gift to myself (maybe few more Orbx airports...the sale is crazy).

I am hoping the Vertx DA62 manuals are released first as a precursor to release.

You guys all can tell on how I excited I am about this addon for my sim.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, robert young said:

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.

Mr. Young....that says about all that needs to be said. To a true General Aviator one of the best uses of the Radio is to say "Approach we have the field in sight and would like to cancel IFR". Thanks for dropping in and I hope you are enjoying retirement!

Share this post


Link to post

 

 Thanks for dropping in and I hope you are enjoying retirement!

I am immensely thank you!

 

Share this post


Link to post

You know what they say, "You can please SOME simmers SOME of the time and ALL simmers SOME of the time. But you can't please ALL simmers ALL of the time"

See what you're missing Rob? :biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Skywolf said:

I am hoping the Vertx DA62 manuals are released first as a precursor to release.

do an internet search - I've already read the RW manuals.👨‍🎓

Edited by pracines
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by Sean Moloney
spelling mistakes
  • Like 7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Lenny777

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.😎

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

csm_Catch_Me_da78d08da9.jpg

 

 

Edited by Skywolf
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Skywolf said:

@Sean Moloney

@Sean Moloney

🍻

 

 

csm_Catch_Me_da78d08da9.jpg

 

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
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!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now