Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
PaulFWatts

Vertex website is Live!

Recommended Posts

2 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 really don't get how your own opinion about what you consider acceptable translates into an attack to Vertx. Inexcusable? Why you think that Sean Moloney has to ask your opinion? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I bet this will be the best G1000 there is in P3D. Nearly everyone who is too hardcore about simming has a Navigraph subscription. Paying 20$ per year to get FSAerodata is not that big of a deal if you are so much into absolute realism. This is a "significant additional expenditure" for you ?

In the contrary. It is inexcusable what you are doing. What makes you think that you can advise Sean to abort the release until he fulfill your requirements? This is ridiculous. And it is disrespectful not only to the developer but to the so many people who we are eagerly waiting to buy it. 

It is really disappointing when I see how rude and disrespectful some people are.

Edited by Daedalus
  • Like 5

Simulators: MSFS 2020 Premium Deluxe | Prepar3D v5 Academic | X-Plane 11 | DCS  World  Open Beta
PC Hardware: Dell U3417W Intel i9 10900K | msi RTX 2080 Ti  Gaming X Trio msi MPG Z490 Gaming Edge Wifi | G.Skill 32GB 3600Mhz CL16 | Samsung 970 EVO Plus/860 EVO/850 EVO x 1TB, Western Digital Black Caviar Black x 6 TB Corsair RM1000i Corsair H115i Platinum Fractal Design Define S2 Gunmetal |
Controls: Fulcrum One Yoke Virpil VPC WarBRD Base Virpil VPC MongoosT-50CM Grip, Thrustmaster Warthog/F/A-18C Grip Thrustmaster TPR Rudder Pedals TrackIR 5Monsterteck Desk Mounts |
My fleet catalog: Link                                                                                                                                                       

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Reuben Getz said:

Ummm, no, my A2A aircraft fully integrate Flight One's Garmin GTN series, thanks.  If I wanted to enjoy the default GPS setup, I'd run out and buy the Vertx DA-42.  Kind of my point here.   

Hi Reuben,

You've certainly made a few facts abundantly clear here - LOL...

Regards,
Scott


imageproxy.png.c7210bb70e999d98cfd3e77d7

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Reuben Getz said:

Ummm, no, my A2A aircraft fully integrate Flight One's Garmin GTN series, thanks.  If I wanted to enjoy the default GPS setup, I'd run out and buy the Vertx DA-42.  Kind of my point here.   

Interesting how one is quick to call an addon release without Navigraph/navigation updates "inexcusable", yet openly admit to using another addon without Navigraph/navigation updates (which is apparently not "inexcusable"). 

🤔

  • Like 4

Jeremy "BZ" Bucholz

Share this post


Link to post

Since when has the FAA, EASA, ICAO, or JAA required all instrument procedures to be based on GPS?  Why do people believe you can't perform an IFR Flight or fly a procedure without a GPS? I would like to see the feature added at some point but as it stands, I know how to identify intersections and maintain heading and altitude perform a procedure turn, perform a hold and so-on without a GPS and in the real world that and a current set of charts is all you need. So what exactly is so "unrealistic" about this DA-62?

 

 

Edited by jalbino59
  • Like 2

Jose A.

Core Components: AMD Ryzen5 3600 @ 4.2Ghz - G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32 GB DDR4 3600 CL16 (XMP)  - Gigabyte Aorus Elite X-570 WiFi - Asus ROG Strix RTX2060S 8gb

Storage: WD Black SN750 NVMe 500gb - AData sx8200 Pro NVMe 1TB

WIN10 - P3D v.4.5, X-PLANE 11

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2018 at 5:08 PM, cavaricooper said:

Hopefully working on the RTM, far, far away from this puerile thread. Whatever AND WHENEVER it releases, it will be stunning, it will be updated and it will be an incredible return on investment. After all, I’ve only got years and years of history from RA to base that on.

Let’s see what Sean comes up with and collectively marvel at his one man operational output, rather than speculate and micro-dissect before release.

C

C

  • Upvote 1

Best-

Carl Avari-Cooper

Share this post


Link to post

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

Sam

Prepar3D V5.0/8086K@5.0/EVGA 1080TI SC Black/850W PSU/Windows 10/40" 4K Samsung Monitor@3840x2160/ASP4/ASCA/ORBX/ChasePlane/General Aviation/Vertx DA-62/

Share this post


Link to post

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


Ron Hamilton

 

"95% is half the truth, but most of it is lies, but if you read half of what is written, you'll be okay." __ Honey Boo Boo's Mom

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

Robert Young - retired full time developer - see my Nexus Mod page and my GitHub Mod page

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.


Chris

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!


Sam

Prepar3D V5.0/8086K@5.0/EVGA 1080TI SC Black/850W PSU/Windows 10/40" 4K Samsung Monitor@3840x2160/ASP4/ASCA/ORBX/ChasePlane/General Aviation/Vertx DA-62/

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

It's AVSIM Jim, but not as we know it.

My Paints On MediaFire

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

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
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    31%
    $7,835.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...