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 December 7, 20187 yr by Daedalus

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

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"). 

🤔

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 December 7, 20187 yr by jalbino59

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

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!! 😁

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

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 December 7, 20187 yr by robert young

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.

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.

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!

 

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

I am immensely thank you!

 

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?

Well now that that's done, anyone have an F5 key they could lend me?

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 December 7, 20187 yr by pracines