Eaglesoft FPS hit??

[Guest captaindobbin]

Bill,Please don't assume the worst. By exactly the same I meant there are no new features, e.g. textures, self-shadowing, bumpmapping, or windshield. They did not redesign the plane from the ground up like realair did with their sf260. The realair upgrade discount is more than 50%. Given the fsx demands, it would have been nice for eaglesoft to rigorously optimize the plane for fsx which they did not. They simply made it work. I do not mean that's an easy task, far from it, but 30% discount, that means the plane is still about $20 when you've already spent about $30 on the old one. Yet I admit this point is more arguable than the second regarding the vm1000.As far as vector gps, that's one thing. But an engine block; I think if you actually check you'll find that the glasair vm1000 looks just as good and is as smooth as that of the liberty. More imporant, the heaviest performance impact in the liberty comes not from the two gps but from its vm1000 - I checked. The liberty performs at a similar level to the cirrus yet has modern glass. I don't care nor does anyone else who bought the plane what the reason is (vector vs xml etc.). The point is the plane is almost unflyable in fsx and it shouldn't be.

[n4gix 4,947]

Why do you assume that ESDG is finished with the SR20/22? I only assume that ESDG released an interim version to make them flyable in FSX. It might be that there will be a further update one day, when all the remodeling dust settles. :) I much prefer to remain optimistic...

[Guest captaindobbin]

Bill,As do I, as do I. I don't want to start a fight or appear obnoxious. I'm just being honestly critical. I am still happy with my purchases from eaglesoft as they offer a fantastic avidyne, no doubt about it. I just think they could work on making things more affordable for past customers, and - what is more significant to me since I already spent the money - more frame rate friendly given fsx. I think what I posted earlier about having an option to decrease the top resolution of the avidyne slightly (not to the blurry level of the low resolution cockpit mode) is a simple method and compromise. As it stands, in high resolution cockpit mode you can zoom in within inches and the avidyne is still sharp; perhaps it could be toned down just a little for the sake of performance. I do find it curious, however, that the resolution of gauges in fsx and fs9 is primarily cpu bound and not gpu bound. You'd think that if the high resolution cockpit avidyne or g1000 is simulating the same avionics systems as the low resolution one, that the impact would remain more or less the same if you had a good graphics card, but this is not the case. Owen could you please address what I am saying in this paragraph? By the way, I am unable to register on your forums with either of my email accounts.

[OwenHewitt 0]

>I think what I posted earlier about having an option to>decrease the top resolution of the avidyne slightly (not to>the blurry level of the low resolution cockpit mode) is a>simple method and compromise. As it stands, in high resolution>cockpit mode you can zoom in within inches and the avidyne is>still sharp; perhaps it could be toned down just a little for>the sake of performance. I do find it curious, however, that>the resolution of gauges in fsx and fs9 is primarily cpu bound>and not gpu bound. You'd think that if the high resolution>cockpit avidyne or g1000 is simulating the same avionics>systems as the low resolution one, that the impact would>remain more or less the same if you had a good graphics card,>but this is not the case. Owen could you please address what I>am saying in this paragraph?Hi there,You certainly can adjust the resolution of VC gauges via the panel.cfg on your own, to get a balance that you are seeking.We generally ship with pixel size=1024,1024 (the maximum available), but this can be toned down to 512,512 or 728,728, or whatever gives satisfactory performance and asthetics. This is generally the first place I would recommend anyone who wants to ease performance hit within the VC.I hope I have addressed your concern, and thanks for your support of Eaglesoft Development Group.Best regards,Owen

[N400QW 205]

The topic from the OP is regarding the Cirrus. The OP has a purchase decison to make given the information he has regarding refund policy and how a given product will perform on HIS machine. Eaglesoft does not debate the relative merit of technique or discuss desired methods posted by non team members. If you feel that our product is unflyable in FSX we suggest that you could have and should have taken advantage of the refund policy.As to affordability..Eaglesoft has a 30% Discount Program to assist customers in transition to FSX. In the case of the Liberty XL2 that amounts to a $22.95 FS9 price and a whopping $16.00 FSX price. If that is not affordable then there is little we can do to please some folks.:-)Finally, suggest you obtain an email address such as Yahoo and reregister in our forum. Contact me and I will personally activate your account.

[dokelly07 0]

I appreciate you letting me know about the refund policy. I have nothing to lose. I will just try a few planes on my system, if they do not run well, I will refund and repurchase after I upgrade. Sounds great to me. thanks for all the input and for great customer support before I am even a customer.Danon O. - -

[Guest captaindobbin]

Thanks Owen, I will try that.Ron, true but what you say does not reconstitute the ebb and flow of this discussion. As far as your second paragraph goes, that is a corporate-sounding dismissive response. Besides, I decided to hold on to the liberty in the hope that performance would eventually improve with the service pack and directx 10 update. Your point about affordability is condescending, namely the "whopping" and the smilely face, and does not address the meat of what I said anyway in bringing up realair. I'm a customer and customers will make comparisons in any market. If you honestly don't think mine is fair then perhaps you should say why. If not, then I understand why you have chosen to remain silent on the issue but ask you not to be so curt. It's telling that you claim the topic is about the cirrus yet go ahead and bring up the liberty instead of the more expensive cirrus, to which I was directly referring. Assist customers? I think you mean ensure customers, which is fine too. You should listen to what George Carlin has to say about euphemisms. I'm not claiming Eaglesoft doesn't deserve customers, but rather that you should follow Owen's lead and treat past customers, i.e. me, with respect. No I don't think I will contact you since my questions have already been answered.

[N400QW 205]

>I appreciate you letting me know about the refund policy. I>have nothing to lose. I will just try a few planes on my>system, if they do not run well, I will refund and repurchase>after I upgrade. Sounds great to me. thanks for all the input>and for great customer support before I am even a customer.>>Danon O. - - You are quite welcome Danon...remember we have support forums designed to assist customers as well:-)

[N400QW 205]

>Thanks Owen, I will try that.>>Ron, true but what you say does not reconstitute the ebb and>flow of this discussion. As far as your second paragraph goes,>that is a corporate-sounding dismissive response. Besides, I>decided to hold on to the liberty in the hope that performance>would eventually improve with the service pack and directx 10>update. Your point about affordability is condescending,>namely the "whopping" and the smilely face, and does not>address the meat of what I said anyway in bringing up realair.>I'm a customer and customers will make comparisons in any>market. If you honestly don't think mine is fair then perhaps>you should say why. If not, then I understand why you have>chosen to remain silent on the issue but ask you not to be so>curt. >>It's telling that you claim the topic is about the cirrus yet>go ahead and bring up the liberty instead of the more>expensive cirrus, to which I was directly referring. Assist>customers? I think you mean ensure customers, which is fine>too. You should listen to what George Carlin has to say about>euphemisms. I'm not claiming Eaglesoft doesn't deserve>customers, but rather that you should follow Owen's lead and>treat past customers, i.e. me, with respect. No I don't think>I will contact you since my questions have already been>answered. >>Your choice as always. We see no point in seeing the thread go OT because you feel the need to express yourself. Frankly, we always try to assist customers to obtain maximum enjoyment of our products. This leaves little time for long winded "discussions" on why customer A feels "slighted" or customer B doesn't understand or agree with our pricing policy.....Hope this helps:-)

[Guest captaindobbin]

You may see no point, so what. We? Who, team eaglesoft? Owen has already approached things differently from you. The originator of the topic has basically fulfilled his curiosity, so now the set in stone topic as you see it is irrelevant. And since he was discussing potential performance it's not as if what I said was entirely unrelated. I'm not the only one here or in many places who has noticed the oddly poor performance of the liberty. Why not look into what I said about the vm1000 because it is central to that problem instead of saying "Eaglesoft does not debate the relative merit of technique or discuss desired methods posted by non team members". I was actually trying to be constructive. As to why customer a or b etc... sure I commented about pricing. I wasn't forcing or even desiring of you to discuss but hoping that someone from eaglesoft would listen, which has happened. Others may choose to discuss or not. Also what you said makes no sense at all. How could you simultaneously "try to assist customers to obtain maximum enjoyment of (your) products" and yet not address my legitimate concerns which you in fact subordinate to feeling slighted, etc. Anyway, I do hope you take what I say seriously and also include what Owen suggested about the pixel size from the panel.cfg in a revised readme. I don't mean ill will - again, your avidyne is remarkable - but stop insulting me or I'll keep calling you on it. Thanks for that last smiley face. Low blow.

[N400QW 205]

>We? Who, team eaglesoft?Please note that as founder and owner of Eaglesoft Development Group there is no intent to insult you in any statement I have made. We do listen to reasonable customer feedback and make decisons based on that feedback but are in no way obligated to discuss technique or methodology, pricing or policy, in public forums at the insistance of anyone who is not a member of Team Eaglesoft.You are welcome to join our support forums and provide your feedback there. While we do and will listen to your feedback there we are still under no obligation to discuss the things outlined in the previous paragraph with non Team Members.Hope this helps:-)

[dokelly07 0]

Update:I purchased the SR22 G2 and could not be more pleased! I lost about 5fps with this package, and for me it runs smoother than the C172 glass cockpit default. A 5 FPS loss for the detail in the VC is minimal in my opinion, I would have thought it to be a slideshow.What a joy to fly around! For what I spend my time doing in FSX...mostly VFR GA flight - this is perfect. Thank you, and I can at least hope to get more fps back from SP1 if it in fact helps, if not...well - I found my new favorite plane anyway.thanks for the feedback, and customer support. I registered for the support forums, but it said it had to be approved. I will wait around, and enjoy visiting there as well.have a good eveningdanon -

[N400QW 205]

>Update:>>I purchased the SR22 G2 and could not be more pleased! I lost>about 5fps with this package, and for me it runs smoother than>the C172 glass cockpit default. A 5 FPS loss for the detail in>the VC is minimal in my opinion, I would have thought it to be>a slideshow.>>What a joy to fly around! For what I spend my time doing in>FSX...mostly VFR GA flight - this is perfect. Thank you, and>I can at least hope to get more fps back from SP1 if it in>fact helps, if not...well - I found my new favorite plane>anyway.>>thanks for the feedback, and customer support. I registered>for the support forums, but it said it had to be approved. I>will wait around, and enjoy visiting there as well.>>have a good evening>danon - Thank YOU Danon! Glad to see that our SR22 is performing well on your system! Also appreciate your positive feedback:-) We too hope that the FSX SP1 will help everyone to have increased performance and enjoy FSX.

[Geofa 108]

Well I gotta say this thread brings up something that I just don't get and due to the late hour I have to get out ...I get about a 4-5 fps hit with this product over a default fsx non g1000 aircraft. Am I surprised? No-it has a Avidyne in all its glory and a couple of Garmins to boot in their glory along with a lot of other additions. It is a great product?-yes!-I bought it for fs9 and I bought it again for Fsx-and I am extremely happy. I can understand if that 4-5 fps penalty may make fsx run below what one can accept but that is no reflection on the product.The last time I programed a computer was in 1981-but at that time the computer I used could take about 160 lines of machine code. After you wrote the code you spent hours trying to figure out a way to reduce it to less lines of code-as each reduction of single line of code meant an increase in speed. Usually after a long time you might reduce two to five lines and get a 2-3% increase-wow!Can you add two simulated garmins and an avidyne to stock Fsx with all that increased code and expect that somehow the code will be "optimized" and run just as good if not faster than a stock Fsx without these 3 high fallooting instruments that are an additional drain on the program? Is it unreasonable to expect when you add "more" features to the sim and more code-that it probably will not run just as fast as it did before you added all those additional features?Same thing with fs9 vs. fsx-I am amazed at how many expectations are that everything on the sim should increase in features- yet somehow be "optimized" so that it runs faster or as well as fs9?! I know Aces is expecting a performance increase in sp1 so they must have brain stormed over saving some lines of code like I used to-but there are only so many rabbits that you can pull out of a hat-when you add more features/lines of code-there is a penalty!Fsx has more features (lines of code) than fs9 and a great add on like the Eaglesoft products likewise. You don't get something for nothing. If the penalty is more than one can accept that is understandable-but you can't add a bunch of extras to the stock program and not pay some kind of price.I am just glad to fly a Cirrus in Fsx for the price of a single meal or a movie that I walked out of last night because it was so bad (paid $18 for my wife and I for that-lasted an hour before we walked out). I very seriously checked into buying a real Cirrus when my Baron's engines were worn out this year-couldn't really afford it. Amazing that I can own/fly one Fsx. I'll take the 4-5 fps hit to see and experience a Cirrus in its glory-a lot cheaper than 2-300 grand for a real one...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[N400QW 205]

>Same thing with fs9 vs. fsx - I am amazed at how many expectations are that everything on the sim should increase in features - yet somehow be "optimized" so that it runs faster or as well as fs9?Couldn't agree more Geofa:-)Was talking to someone today and they mentioned the fact that no developer can do anything about "unrealistic expectations by consumers"The best efforts of any developer including MS can only try to meet or exceed "realistic expectations"Thank you for the vote of confidence and your support of us and our products:-)