FSX airplane developers...heads up..

[N400QW 205]

Andre, Eaglesoft customers post their thoughts here from time to time and we have a right to respond...we suggest that you are not harmed in the least. It may help you if you were to know that we are not only developers but users of our own and fellow developers products.Hope this helps:-)

[BlueDiamond 0]

Ron,I can hardly wait for the G1000 Columbia like so many others.I know you guys would never give a specific release date but do you think we'll see it by next summer?I have the Mindstar G1000 in a couple aircraft and while it works pretty well it still seems to have a very long way to go to be complete enough to meet Eaglesoft standards.Since others are saying negative things about Eaglesoft I would like to say I have been a member at the ES forums since Dec 2005 and I've bought nearly every aircraft they've ever offered and have had nothing but positive experiences both with the great folks at Eaglesoft and with their excellent aircraft.If not for developers like Eaglesoft,RealAir and PMDG I probably would have given up long ago on flight simming.Keep up the great work.Michael

[Guest weeniemcween]

As I have already made abundantly clear, I am firmly in agreement with Andre.I think it is perfectly fair for users like you, Michael, to disagree with criticisms of either the quality of Eaglesoft's products and/or their support. The avidyne sr20 and 22, columbia 400 packages are indeed very affordable and well done. Although I myself have to disagree with you about how thorough the eaglesoft avidyne simulations are. They have been promising for some time at added cost several of the features now available in the significantly more expensive yes but more complete Flight1 (tech) avidyne student simulator which features TAWS and terrain/airspace map. Once flight1 bring the package to fsx I think I will be very happy. Maybe one day they can add charts too. It's more than fine of course that eaglesoft has a less complete simulation, since it currently costs much less and comes with a choice of three fully modeled planes, but I think that people are a little too quick to sing extremely high praises of the eaglesoft rendition, which is lacking some very very important elements for which real pilots often buy avidyne equipped aircraft. Edit: to anticipate a cost/value argument that might be prompted against this remark: a) real planes really fly b)FAA certification of avionics costs a lot to acquire c)the fs add on market permits a certain price envelope. (On a side note, I think that eaglesoft's having the only true (partial) avidyne simulation for quite some time has perhaps made them arrogant and frankly apathetic about supporting and improving - as many developers do - already purchased products.)And you don't know about what's included or not until you either have read a good review or the manual of the already installed product, which you then might go through the hassle of returning. Okay, we can all read reviews, but wouldn't be a lot easier for specific features to be listed on the actual eaglesoft product page? Many of their products have no descriptions whatsoever. And the Columbia 400 is generally listed as having eight liveries (the fsx version does but the fs9 does not). Someone complained of this information error on their forums a month ago and it still hasn't been fixed. Basically, for these reasons and others I have already mentioned and am about to mention I seriously question eaglesoft's integrity. To get back to the point of arguing over eaglesoft in the first place, we customers and non developers should be allowed to do so, but it is totally unacceptable at least to my taste for developers to actively promote their products when given the slightest opening and try to dictate discussions on these forums, which are intended for the community, right? And look how hypocritical Ron is; he tells me that the op's post was about shared cockpit, insinuating that I added the subject of eaglesoft's support when in fact he did - after promoting his products from the second post on - saying, "we attempt to provide the best in FSX compatibilty". I took issue with that statement and therefore I am changing the subject? I don't think so. What he really means is any post that makes eaglesoft look less great than he wants the company to look is against the grain of discussion. He has made this attitude evident so many times on these forums I can't count them on all my digits. Sure, he has the "right" to respond, but he almost always couples these defenses with annoying advertisements and marketing speak. Moreover, since eaglesoft already has plenty of apologists here, does he really need to start? The argument over products should be left to the community not to the developers, unless a developer is truly needed to set the record straight about a specific point of contention and not merely defend an image. It is because of this issue why I started criticizing eaglesoft to begin with, and why I feel strongly enough to write long posts like this one.

[N400QW 205]

Wow Weenie, it's quite clear that you and Andre have a real agenda going against Eaglesoft and it's products.I laughed so hard I nearly fell over while reading your remarks:-lol I will remind you that these forums do not belong to you or Andre anymore than they belong to Eaglesoft and we will continue to post here so you may as well get used to it. Frankly, if the feedback we are hearing is correct, the community has grown weary of the tactics practiced by you and Andre to nitpick and denigrate others.I've been in Miami the last few days to attend the Experience Aviation Celebration of Barrington Irvings Historic flight around the world in his Avidyne equipped Columbia 400. You may have caught some of it on CNN yesterday. More on this in the National Media as they present it:-)Here are a couple of links...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/27/...in2989520.shtml http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_d...ory/152926.htmlWe were happy to see the Eaglessoft Logo on Barringtons Aircraft as he circumnavigated the globe. We've also had the pleasure of meeting with them on providing our Avidyne equipped Columbia 400 to the their Learning Center for youth much like we did in the Seattle Museum of Flight Learning Center for youth with our Cirrus SR20 G2. For more on the Seattle Musuem of Flight Learning Center see our Field Trips section on our website:-)As to your other complaints, we are an extremely busy team and all good things come to those who patiently wait.Hope this helps:-)

[jmig 100]

As I mentioned before, I don

[LAdamson 240]

> Edit: to anticipate a cost/value>argument that might be prompted against this remark: a) real>planes really fly b)FAA certification of avionics costs a lot>to acquire c)the fs add on market permits a certain price>envelope. >It's still an enormous cost/value problem!If you believe that full blown & totally authentic Avidyne or Garmin glass panels should be available at "el-cheapo" desktop simmer prices; then dream on! That's a very un-reasonable argument against any sim developer. Why not have them throw in authentic 28 day updates for free....too! :-lol L.Adamson

[Guest weeniemcween]

Larry,I'm sorry if I was unclear but at no point did I say that authentic avidyne or garmin glass panels should be available at el cheapo desktop simmer prices. That un-reasonable argument (I agree) never occured in what I said.My points were instead that eaglesoft are no longer the be all and end all avidyne, that Michael's statement was exaggerating the completeness of their products, and that frankly I thought they had become arrogant as a result of being the only ones to provide an avidyne for some time. If you look, you will see that I said their sr20, 22 and columbia 400 products were very affordable and well done. I just think people give them too much license because of this.Ron, obviously there are plenty of people who are not going to like or agree with what I have said - a few a really excited user and a number of more reasoned people like John and Larry. But first you should not simply conflate for your convenience what Andre and I are invidually saying. We are two different people and he may not be of the same opinion on everything I have said. Go ahead, mock me, yet what have you done Ron but made another extended advertisement? Although I don't at all think that your motivations on providing those avidyne equipped columbia 400 simulations to Experience Aviation - so students may recreate Irving's route - are purely for profit, those simulations are still not donated for free and Irving himself was in need of sponsors to fund his trip, right? There is a strong commercial element and for that reason I don't think your talking about it here is in good taste, especially since you and your colleagues have already devoted much of your blogs to the whole event. John, my sense of fairness is apparently not the same as your sense of fairness. Nor do I think it is acceptable for Ron to use every opportunity to promote the positives of his products, at least not here.

[BlueDiamond 0]

Could you please point out exactly where in my post I stated that the Eaglesoft Avidyne system was a 100% simulation of the real world unit?I never even mentioned Avidyne.It is plenty complete enough for me to enjoy.Seems to me you are exagrerating a little.I only stated I have always enjoyed Eaglesoft's aircraft along with RealAir and PMDG's.On the subject of value I paid only $22 for the C400 and there are other devs out there charging $40 plus for aircaft that have vc's that look cartoonish and have only a very limited number of clickable swithes.Yet people buy them like crazy.Go figure.So in closing if stating that I like a few developers products makes me a "a really excited user" then so be it.Michael

[Guest weeniemcween]

Sorry, I didn't mean that you specifically were a a really excited user, just that there are bound to be some that are going to complain in emails.Where did I state that you stated that the eaglesoft avidyne system was a 100% simulation of the real world unit?I was only objecting to this: "I have the Mindstar G1000 in a couple aircraft and while it works pretty well it still seems to have a very long way to go to be complete enough to meet Eaglesoft standards." Personally, I don't think the eaglesoft standards for a number of things are exceptionally high; at any rate, I don't think mindstar's g1000 (which I don't own, but it seems to me based on the avsim review) or the fsx default g1000 are really at a lower level (at least significantly if you don't agree with at all) than the eaglesoft avidyne - even if you weren't referring to that specifically, you prompted my own internal comparison. And again, the issue for me is not really the quality of the products but instead the way they choose to market them. Same goes for PMDG, by the way.If only every developer were as genuinely good-willed as RealAir... that's my opinion.

[Guest PPSFA]

I started this thread with a specific purpose, to try to get developers attention and hopefully responses. You might notice the word 'developers' in the thread title? You also might notice the word 'Eaglesoft' in my initial post. Having a developer respond is EXACTLY why I started this thread, the dissapointment is that more didnt. I have a suggestion for those that want to hijack this thread to promote their own personal agenda against a developer, don't read the thread, or better yet, start your own thread. Either way, please either try to keep on topic in this one.My personal opinion is that any developer who replies to a post is more than welcome to, and its not 'promoting', its showing responsibility and interest, and I wish more would.

[ramsa329 0]

I have to agree with PPFSA.I took as many routes as possible NOT to mention any particular developer for fear that this would become a festival of personal opinion.But as the discussion progressed there was so much false (mis-informed or otherwise) information given regarding SC that I felt a short, and as I mentioned, incomplete list would counter some of it.I am not a "a really excited user" of Eaglesoft but on the other hand they produce a product which, for me and for others I fly with, allows the full use of SC. WHICH WAS WHAT THIS POST WAS ABOUT.What makes me "angry" is that the developers who have produced aircraft in which even the basic AP does not function in SC are either unaware of the problem, which I KNOW to be UNTRUE, or simply choose to ignore it in pursuit of personal gain or to "recapture" their former "glory" from Fs9.and I could easily name those.In my list I mentioned planes that were not even developed for FSX and even in one case wasn't developed for Fs9 yet support SC to try to show that it was not a "programming nightmare" as someone here said.My point was, is and shall remain that ACCOUNTIBILITY is the issue here.and, OH OH here we go, watch out Michael.........Even those who view themselves as the right hand of GOD ie... ACES and their representatives on earth should be held acoountible for whay they do and say................I suppose that no one saw in development that the Rockies were a desert just like no one saw that an AP was dysfunctional in SC.Come on pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease LOL and I love FSX !!!!Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

[Guest weeniemcween]

When you ask a question about compatibility and create an opening for a developer (which you did not have to do, by the way), who then responds in promotion of their own products and something which obfuscates the issue to their own advantage, expect some response. Here's what I mean about obfuscation - This is what Ron said: "We appreciate the poster noting our aircraft and their capabilities but agree that other developers are certainly capable of accomplishing what this user suggests they should do."As others in this thread have noted, it is a bit more complex than that. Many features in more complex airliner add ons are simply unachieveable using the standard sdk protocol. As a result, the shared cockpit capabilities of these aircraft can be limited. To say that "other developers are certainly capable of accomplishing" the same level of shared cockpit compatibility makes it seem like they have neglected something where eaglesoft has not, when in fact it is very difficult (much more so than it is for eaglesoft) for them to deliver it. What I said originally questioned eaglesoft's overall efforts towards compatibility and support, which I thought was made relevant by Ron's post. If you think that I have hijacked the thread because that part of discussion is now too prevalent, then I apologize, and hope that the preceeding paragraph will help return the discussion to the route which you intended. Fair enough?

[Guest PPSFA]

Tks for the reply, however, things dont seem to be as complex as some would have us believe, rather I belive those functions are simply being ignored by some developers.As an example, I am compiling a list of planes that DO function in MP/SC, and some of those were created for FS2002. It is simply unbelieveable to me that planes created over 8 years ago function better than some new planes that are specifically created for FSX. I would love to hear from developers on this.

[Guest weeniemcween]

Good point, you are probably right about that. I'll keep my comments on this topic from now on.

[Guest PPSFA]

Tks, after all we all want the same thing, planes that work :-)