Maddog or Super 80 for FSX?

[Midnight Music 252]

Okay the big question, who do I plunk my credit card down for? The Maddog MD80 or the Flight 1 Super 80? Both look great. I'm not a VC maniac, as long as I have a great 2D panel, I'm happy. If there's a good VC with it, then fine. I like having an FMC and the outer model needs to be super accurate. I don't mind reading a manual, but I can't spend the next 6 months trying learn systems. I do have to work for a living. :-lol Lee

[blueridgeflyer 1]

>Okay the big question, who do I plunk my credit card down>for? The Maddog MD80 or the Flight 1 Super 80? Both look>great. I'm not a VC maniac, as long as I have a great 2D>panel, I'm happy. If there's a good VC with it, then fine. I>like having an FMC and the outer model needs to be super>accurate. I don't mind reading a manual, but I can't spend the>next 6 months trying learn systems. I do have to work for a>living. :-lol >>LeeWow, that's a tough one to answer, as I have them both. The Maddog 2006 is a much later model MD80 & as such has a more sophisticated avionics suite (which includes a FMS). Its a partial glass cockpit with Honeywell PFD/MFD units. I also find the flight model to be highly realistic, especially in pitch characteristics along various flight configurations.The Flight1 MD80 is a smooth performer in FSX. I know that you aren

[brucek 38]

I would second Ryan's comments. I had both of these birds for FS9, and have since obtained the update to FSX for both. In both cases I am amazed at how the flight dynamics of FSX make the flight models so realistic (that even goes for the C172, which as a pilot that actually flies this old bird, I can't get enough of the pitch stability that FSX has over FS9).Back to the products you asked about: I believe that the systems are better modelled in the MadDog product, where such an event as a "hot start" is well done. I believe that the authors were out to emulate (or better) another MD80 product for FS9. In that way, the MadDod product resembles the Level-D product, and as it's a later model it's more likely to be seen in the real skies today (if that's a factor for you).However, nothing prepared me for the VC in the Super-80 after the porting to FSX (with it's better visuals). The immersion is almost unbelievable. I also note that the author has not just "ported" the product to FSX. but also redesigned some aspects of it, including the flight model. I'm no MD pilot, but both appear to behave very predictably with varying power settings. This could be just the influence of FSX.A hard choice. Sorry I can't make it any easier :)Bruce.

[Midnight Music 252]

Hmmm, might have to get them both. I'll work some extra hours.:-cool Lee

[Tabs 2,790]

I'm partial to the Maddog - it's really great.

[Guest CyberSimmer]

This post got me curious about the Maddog MD 80 so I googled for it. It seems to me just from looking over their site that the Maddog doesnt come with a virtual cockpit?? I know its been said that some arent interested in virtual cockpits! I just think that at 44Euro!! It should be an option!Chris

[JDWalley 354]

They say a VC will be included in a later free update. Having spent way too much on "soon to be completed" aircraft from Captain Sim, I'll hold off plunking down the Visa until that update is something more tangible than vaporware. Once burned, twice shy.

[Orlaam 306]

I can't imagine that being the case. The Leonardo group seems to be very small, perhaps two or three people for actual development. Maybe it says in the manuals how many people are developers, but I don't recall seeing that. At any rate, the plane itself is wonderful. Yes it only has the 2D panel right now, but everything else is complete and near perfection. The only issue I think anyone is really having across the board are the VNAV descents. Personally, I like to fly just using the instruction given by ATC (e.g., Radar Contact). Seems from listening to ATC around here that's what most do anyhow. I imagine Davide is trying to improve that part of the FMC, but none of the real FMCs are that great in VNAV from what I hear.In regards to the VC, I find it impossible to fly by the numbers in an airliner. It's okay with a GA, but so much detail is lost in VCs. I find VCs best suited for looking for traffic once the AP has total control, and for just looking around in general. Yes, I am looking forward to the VC and hope it's coming along, but VCs are last on my priority list.The Maddog2006 has excellent sounds, good visuals, and the FDE is pure joy to hand fly. I honestly think it's the best airliner on the market for manual approach and final. It has some great features like Wx Radar, EGPWS, panel customization, window icing, and a few others that put it in top class and well worth the money they charge. The developers have tried to fix all the problems and continue doing so. Even a couple features were added at user request. I just think the team is small, and we all know these projects take a long time. Their old version had a VC so I can't see why this one would not materialize.

[Guest ziporama]

I can't speak on the super 80 as I do not have that product. The MD-82 from Leonardo has a level of detail and "immersion" that I find quite stunning, reminiscent of the old "Ready for Pushback" 747-200. It's got nifty features, such as built-in support for dual online cockpit (pilot/copilot networked) support to working circuit breakers, I counted at least 8 different buttons to control various cabin and instrument lights - all in 2D mind you with a very elegant mouse interface. In short, one of my favorite planes. Etienne

[Guest United]

With all due respect to the "Maddog" people, no VC = no purchase for me. I don't believe in future promises of anything either, I have already been stung once by a very small company that basically just quit out from all of it's payware customers. Flight1 is a major player and nobody has better support nor have they had it as long. Let the Maddog folk stick around and produce for a couple years and I might change my mind. (and if they have been around a long time, why has the VC been delayed????)Randy Jura, KPDX

[Orlaam 306]

I'm not sure Randy why the VC is delayed. I don't know that the VC was delayed. I think they wanted to produce the plane and have all the systems and regular 2D panel going before making the VC. I like having a product I can fly, even without a VC. As I said, the VCs are not that importanat to me in airliners.The developer of the Maddog has been around a long time too. They are the same people who developed the Lago Maddog. The Lago Maddog was around before I ever got into simming, and I never owned the Lago, but it had its fans. BTW, the Lago had a VC, that's why I see no reason why this one won't be made. They upgraded the 2D panel to a much better looking bitmap, so I doubt upgrading the VC to match is easy to do.Say what you will about the Maddog, but they've made the FSX and FS9 version for one fair price amd have done what they could to fix bugs discovered after release. If the VC is that important, then yes, wait until it's released in a complete package; It'll be free to those who own the 2006 version now however.

[Guest fruitfly]

Super80 is unbelivably easy on my frame rates (like a default cessna, maybe even better? - My settings are AI at 15%,no autogen at all and everything else at max. with 25-36FPS)and that is on an old system:Barton XP 2500+ OC'd @2.2GHz, x1600Pro 512MB Video and 1.5Gb RAMNot only that, but the gauges are suuuper smooth (just check the EPR for instance)And let's not forget; it's two versions for the price of one!I'm more than happy with it and recommend it with whole heart.http://www.americanpatrol.com/_icons/BS_No.gif

[McDaniel 48]

Correction, you can use FSX flight plans ver easy in the FSX super80!I have both, the Super 80 is very nice on frames, but I still have the OOM error which really kills the fun!The Maddog lacks of the anunciated VC panel and is harder on frames, but at least I can complete a flight.....Daniel