2 hours ago, Chock said:

Oh I know what you mean on that score. There is definitely something a bit wacky at landing speeds/configs. First time I tried to land it, I pulled the throttle way back to slow it down and it did, but then it was really draggy and slow to pick up speed to the point where I had to climb it really slowly for a go around despite being on full power with it very close to the stall. I know turbine engines lag and can be slow to pick up, and this is something King Air variants are slightly notorious for, so it has to be watched out for, but if this is what this behaviour is intending to simulate, then it is a bit overdone...

What's the form like on this developer Alan?  In terms of responding to feedback such as yours and updating the product if needed.

3 hours ago, Chock said:

9 hours ago, kaosfere said:

Could you give us a good high-res shot of the sixpack?

Here ya go...

 

Super, thanks.   Looks like the panel has a good degree of dimensionality (ie, it's not a pancake).   I can deal with bad textures, but not having 3D gauges, at least the ones I look at the most, really takes me out of any immersion.

I might just pick this up!

13 hours ago, aniiran said:

The A220 wasn't bad.

It was the best from VirtualCol. I flown the A220 countless hours in P3D before installing MSFS.

I think is worth trying the Beech 99 for MSFS. It's a like a fresh meat.

Cheers, Ed

3 hours ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

I thought that too... In the previous release it was in the lower left.

I looked at some real world photos of 99 cockpits and to my surprise I found some with the exact same Garmin as depicted in Virtualcol’s in the same spot:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Night-Express/Beech-99-Airliner/1553518/L?sid=b2a0ab25bee386cdd3ead02bbf92f993
 

So, I guess that’s what they’re depicting?

On photo it looks like  Garmin 295 though

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Garmin 295 though

I don’t know enough to tell the difference😃

But on appearance alone they’re similar, no?

1 hour ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

I don’t know enough to tell the difference😃

But on appearance alone they’re similar, no?

Well...

Garmin 295/495 kind look the same, but nothing like virtual cal.

What ever they charge and offer in the future overhead panel look terrible if not the worst I have seen in a very long while. I really don't know what reason they have to leave like that.

37 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Well...

Garmin 295/495 kind look the same, but nothing like virtual cal.

What ever they charge and offer in the future overhead panel look terrible if not the worst I have seen in a very long while. I really don't know what reason they have to leave like that.

I refrainedfrom saying anything, but i have to agree. There is NO reason to release it in such a state. They could have done much better, with very little effort.

Specially in 3D and texturing. It looks like they couldnt be bothered. I dont want to diss the devs, i know how long and tedious the process of creating an aircraft is, but the SDK excuse IS NOT ALWAYS VALID. Cant animate the wipers because of the SDK....im sorry, WHAT??

9 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

What's the form like on this developer Alan?  In terms of responding to feedback such as yours and updating the product if needed.

Can't really say with regard to updates, as I've never had occasion to contact them about that. I can however say that on the one occasion where I had a problem with a Virtualcol product (their shorts Skyvan not displaying the VC properly), we had quite a few back and forth emails, with them offering all kinds of suggestions as to why the problem might be occurring. Eventually one of their suggestions with regard to altering a setting in P3D did solve the problem, so it wasn't even an issue with their product, it was one of my sim settings. That was enough for me to form the opinion that they were the kind of developer who would actually go out of their way to help, and this is bearing in mind too, that we were communicating in English, which is not their first language. More on this in a moment.

Back on their Beech 99, in all honesty, the VC is not as good an effort as the one found in the Airbus A220, and is more reminiscent of their earlier stuff; to be frank this isn't up to the standard we sort of expect for MSFS aeroplanes, so it's something they'll have to improve upon if they want to make sales. The visuals are what prompts a lot of people to click that buy button, or not.

Specifically, some of the modeling could be better in terms of elements such as the amount of polygons used for curves. The textures in the VC are what I would call barely adequate, rather than good (see the cockpit headlining and side panels in some screenshots, also notice the slightly misaligned panel lines on the port engine cowling where two texture maps meet). Cheap and cheerful is one thing, but even a cheap and cheerful model can still enjoy a decent VC with some reasonable textures, and we know Virtualcol can make a decent VC when they want to, as seen in their A220. There's far less of an excuse to go spartan on polygons and textures in MSFS than there is in FSX and P3D; in the latter you can claim you are keeping the system overheads down to improve FPS, but this is not a problem for MSFS, so I think it is time for them to up their game a bit in this regard.

With all that said, I am glad to see Virtualcol dip their toes in the MSFS waters, and I personally am prepared to forgive a fair bit for this developer courtesy of the considerable currency and goodwill they have earned with me from previous efforts, but this is the kind of trust that one should not abuse, so I hope they do start to go that extra mile in texturing and VC modeling, because the hard part - actually getting a working aeroplane in the sim - is done, but that's where the way it looks can then let down the effort made in achieving that and it seems a shame that something which is, by comparison fairly simple, looks a bit lacklustre.

I'm sorry but  this is not payware quality!

11 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I'm sorry but  this is not payware quality!

It is if you are in 1998.

29 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I'm sorry but  this is not payware quality!

How much did they charge for that?

they are charging $16.00, which I consider a donation rather than payment for a product. Given the dearth of aircrafts in MSFS, we need to be realistic as to what can be accomplished in such a short time. Of course, the longer we wait, the more ( hopefully) choices and higher prices we will see. It's not an apology for the developer; it is what it is for now.  If, however, the flight dynamics are correct, I'll overlook the textures.

14 minutes ago, flyforever said:

they are charging $16.00, which I consider a donation rather than payment for a product. Given the dearth of aircrafts in MSFS, we need to be realistic as to what can be accomplished in such a short time. Of course, the longer we wait, the more ( hopefully) choices and higher prices we will see. It's not an apology for the developer; it is what it is for now.  If, however, the flight dynamics are correct, I'll overlook the textures.

This is broadly similar to my view on this thing too:

I wanted Virtualcol 'in the game' with regard to making stuff for MSFS, because generally speaking I have a lot of time for their unashamed 'jump in and go aeroplane for not much money' business model.

As such, I'm sort of accepting of the fact that they are dipping their toes in the MSFS waters with this one and were probably more concerned with getting something working in the new sim, rather than going for stunning visuals as a priority. With that in mind, I didn't object too strongly to buying this in spite of the fact that the VC is a bit cack-looking. Another aspect was that I wanted an actual payware aeroplane that worked in Air Hauler 2, and in not having an encrypted Air File, it has delivered on that score, so it's perhaps a bit less disappointing for me than for others, in having ticked that box.

This said, I hope they will take on board the criticism in the opinions people are expressing about the VC visuals, and address them with some updates which up their game a bit from a visual standpoint. Externally it looks pretty nice, so there is little doubt that the modeling side of things is there with them in terms of ability, they just need to apply this to the VC so they make 'the office' a bit nicer as well.

46 minutes ago, Chock said:

This is broadly similar to my view on this thing too:

I wanted Virtualcol 'in the game' with regard to making stuff for MSFS, because generally speaking I have a lot of time for their unashamed 'jump in and go aeroplane for not much money' business model.

As such, I'm sort of accepting of the fact that they are dipping their toes in the MSFS waters with this one and were probably more concerned with getting something working in the new sim, rather than going for stunning visuals as a priority. With that in mind, I didn't object too strongly to buying this in spite of the fact that the VC is a bit cack-looking. Another aspect was that I wanted an actual payware aeroplane that worked in Air Hauler 2, and in not having an encrypted Air File, it has delivered on that score, so it's perhaps a bit less disappointing for me than for others, in having ticked that box.

This said, I hope they will take on board the criticism in the opinions people are expressing about the VC visuals, and address them with some updates which up their game a bit from a visual standpoint. Externally it looks pretty nice, so there is little doubt that the modeling side of things is there with them in terms of ability, they just need to apply this to the VC so they make 'the office' a bit nicer as well.

Let me know about flight dynamics, especially during the approach. I want this aircraft for some cargo bush flying, and need very good slow speed behavior.

14 hours ago, Chock said:

Oh I know what you mean on that score. There is definitely something a bit wacky at landing speeds/configs. First time I tried to land it, I pulled the throttle way back to slow it down and it did, but then it was really draggy and slow to pick up speed to the point where I had to climb it really slowly for a go around despite being on full power with it very close to the stall. I know turbine engines lag and can be slow to pick up, and this is something King Air variants are slightly notorious for, so it has to be watched out for, but if this is what this behaviour is intending to simulate, then it is a bit overdone.

Second time landing after that long flight, I was kind of ready for that dodgy VRef possibility and laggy speed pick up, and so I kept the speed up on finals, only to find that then I was coming in a bit too hot and it was too slippery to get the speed off even with everything hanging out and the throttle at idle; thus floating along the runway quite a long way, with me having to brake hard to not go off the runway after I did finally touch down.

So later today after I've finished work, I'll see if I can find the 'in between' sweet spot. I actually kind of liked it being a bit tricky in that regard though, it's a bit of a challenge, although I suspect it could do with a tweak. I think the trick might be to pull the prop levers right back on short final, might give that a try later.

 

 

Have you tested with the landing yet?