20 minutes ago, Milviz said:

However, it needs to be made clear that, if you don't actually own the product, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to make judgment calls on how it behaves in game.  As far as we're aware, no one else has made this type of comment.  Certainly not in our support forums.

If, however, you do not actually own the product, or have actual flight time in the aircraft, you'd best be better prepared than the "troll" here was.  

Since you have fixed the gear issue there shouldn't be any complaints. But again, it's a no-go for me to lock potential customers out of the support forum and I don't know who the troll is in your opinion.

Edited July 22, 20196 yr by FDEdev

Our reasoning is that if you don't OWN the product, you don't need support for it.  Proof of purchase is required for support.  This is pretty common in the world of aircraft (real and simulated) and we follow that rule.

The troll is the person who makes spurious claims without having checked/verified to see if those claims are true.  If that's you... well... what can I say?

Its bad form for commercial members to be seen as trolling a product from another commercial member , this has reprocussions.

The discussion has run its course

CJ

12 minutes ago, Milviz said:

The troll is the person who makes spurious claims without having checked/verified to see if those claims are true. 

Well, it wasn't me who posted tons of screenshots from the 'wrong' version on your own website, so how can I know that you fixed it?

@Chuck_Jodry-VJPL, FYI, it was someone from your staff who put that weird 'commercial member' under my name and I really don't know why it is there.

21 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

FYI, it was someone from your staff who put that weird 'commercial member' under my name and I really don't know why it is there.

Your screen-name should be clue enough, if you are in fact an FDE Developer...

The Milviz PC-6 with ORBX AYPY, NSTU, Tapini airport, is just top notch! A must to have! 😎

Richard

 

Edited July 22, 20196 yr by DrumsArt

16 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Your screen-name should be clue enough, if you are in fact an FDE Developer...

Why does developing/designing FDEs need to be commercial?

Edited July 22, 20196 yr by FDEdev

Why is there a great big fs2002 2d radio panel in the virtual cockpit??? it looks flat. 1:14 in the video.

 

 

Edited July 22, 20196 yr by MaDDogz

17 hours ago, PWJT8D said:

May I ask which aircraft you feel correctly replicates tailwheel ground handling? Just like everyone else has said I feel it's a great airplane. 

I'd say some of the aircraft that most accurately reflect tailwheel behaviour are, off the top of my head:

• A2A's Texan
• A2A's Mustang 
• DCS's Mustang, Bf-109, Spitfire and FW-190

I was stating my opinion. That's it. I'm not saying anything else or implying any dark motives.

I have RL experience in a Cub. That's all; not a great deal of experience. I have a real passion for taildraggers since I believe they offer the best challenge to flying skills.

I had second thoughts about my post after pressing the 'Submit' button. It was kinda whiney and bitter. Too late now 🙂

15 hours ago, somiller said:

I'm not as much of an expert on "taildragger ground handling" as you, so for me it's a superb addon, and I'll be flying it alot. As a matter of fact, a group of us just completed a flight recreating Air America adventures in Laos, and the short, unimproved fields in rough terrain were a great test for this aircraft.

This is the only aircraft I've ever owned and flown in P3D that adequately simulates free-turbine performance. The only aircraft better in this regard, IMHO, is the Majestic Q400, but it's a geared turbine.

I'm curious how many taildraggers of this size and power you've flown IRL to have acquired the experience leading to your observation about the MV PC-6?

Kind Regards,

See my response above.

No, I have not flow a PC-6. How many have? 1000?

A taildragger is a taildragger.

2 hours ago, MaDDogz said:

Why is there a great big fs2002 2d radio panel in the virtual cockpit??? it looks flat. 1:14 in the video.

Because that what he chose to use. I have no idea why since there are multiple choices that are fully 3d he could have chosen to use.

BTW, those are default FSX/P3D avionics, not FS2002 (which wouldn't run at all).

Fair enough, his plane lol

The old 2D panel the uploaded of this video put in there himself, he stated its easier to operate in VR mode. The MV PC6 does feature custom gauges.

When you say, a taildragger is a taildragger, and then state you have experience on both the A2A Mustang and T6, you can't be serious. Both behave completely different. The Mustang is a beast on takeoff, while the T6 is pretty straight forward, while on landing the Mustang rolls out rather easily without the difficult ground loop tendency of the T6. Putting in the Cub.. again a different experience.

The MV PC6 is a great addon with pretty spot on flight dynamics, accurate engine modeling and very good ground handling characteristics. All systems are there and simulated. For an addon in this price range, it offers a lot of content.

If you don't like it, that's fine. But don't judge what you haven't really tested yourself.

2 hours ago, RichieFly said:

A taildragger is a taildragger.

That's ridiculous...might as well just have said an airplane is an airplane. I've flown several 100's hours in a real Cherokee, which is a tricycle gear. I haven't flown a Boeing 737, but being tricycle gear, should I assume it handles like a Cherokee on the ground?

Most taildraggers are similar with respect to tailwheel steering. Of course taxiing a cub vs taxiing a P-51 will be different but the principles are the same so. IMHO, in that respect alone - taildraggers are taildraggers. However an airplane is NOT an airplane! 

OK guys, there's some good info in this thread so let's stop the nit picking and keep it alive please.

Vic