Dreamfleet Bonanza in FSX?

[Guest DreamFleet]

>What it comes down to is this: in fs2004 I can run an>aircraft with the Jetline EADI and EHSI, a GNS 530 and/or 430,>the WX500 weather radar, and a ST3400 TAWS/TCAS/RMI and YET>STILL get far better frame rates than with the Eaglesoft SR22>and Columbia, which don't have TAWS, WX radar, or realistic>flight planning. Sure, the realityxp products cost a bundle of>money together, but the quality is the highest possible and>you can add them to any aircraft (including yours), which>makes them exceed yours in value. >>I wish that the Airliner XP group had put all their efforts>into updating their old products, rather than going after the>airbus void and using the new gauge coding developed to then>update their old products, but that is a matter of priority.>Airbus lovers have the opposite interest. >>Regardless, the proof remains in the pudding. Eaglesoft are in>no place to criticize the developement progress of Reality XP>until they develop that super-featured Citation X 2.0 and>manage to get good frame rates like the no longer supported :)>Feelthere one (which has almost as many features and outdoes>all those past eaglesoft bizjets without fms implementation>and custom autopilot logic). >>But i'm guessing the Citation X 2.0 won't be coming out until>after Reality XP updates most if its past products of an>already achieved standard! >>That's most kind of you to say. :)I always wondered why other developers have to post in on threads about DF / Reality XP products. Anyway....The FACT is that that the Airbus A320 (Airliner XP)is paving the way for new technology that we will be integrated into upgrading older products and creating new ones.This is nothing new, and has been mentioned in past posts at the AXP, RXP and DF forums.Perhaps that's the "smoke and mirrors" that someone spoke of above, I guess.;)Indeed, the "smoke and mirrors" we are using is to prevent any other developer from cracking the code and seeing what we are doing! :-lolWe are NOT ignoring past products, but we first needed to finalize our new gauge framework (which will continue to improve in the future). The release of the RXP WX500 radar for FSX was the sign that we had the framework suitable enough for use. It was a lot of work.Our priorities are quite sound.Otherwise, we made a decision with the release of FSX that we would not just follow the same old course that other developers are, along with deciding to do the Airbus. The Airbus actually became the foundation for what we are doing, a new gauge "framework". One that not only takes us away from the FS SDK, but allows us to provide enhanced performance, fidelty, and forward compatibility. It gives us far more flexibility, including the ability to display gauge / panel graphics at a resolution / color depth not yet seen.Needless to say, we're not about to reveal everything in public, but we do try to keep our customers informed as best as is possible.Now, of course, other developers, while knowing absolutely nothing about our work, will make their comments. They will tell you that GDI+, XML, etc. is just as good as what we are doing. That's funny, as they have NO idea what we are doing and, make no mistake about it, we will not share it with them either. Some of them ensured that by their comments about us in public.Sadly, such work takes time, a ton of it, and integration of this new technology into past DF / RXP products will be just partial. New products, AFTER the release of the Airbus should be total in nature. We take it a step at a time.All this aside, and I have mentioned this in posts at the AXP forum, it has been a very rough past 6 months for us. The personal issues our small team have endured was a picture post card for "Murphy's Law", and we have not, nor will we reveal all of it in public either.The most recent event is one I suffered, and it hit hard, real hard.http://www.airlinerxp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=481Now, we're not looking for sympathy, but at least we are being forthcoming.We're following our own course, and as to what other developers have to say in this thread, trust me, they have absolutely, positvely no idea what we are doing and what we have created. They'll tell you that it is "smoke and mirrors" and other such things, whatever. Believe us, don't believe us, believe them, don't believe them, whatever. We're only going to say so much, and will not debate other developers in public. Let them say / believe what they wish, and you all all do the same. If they want to jump in on threads about us, great! That means they are paying attention to us. We like that.I apologize that our A36 is not yet formally in FSX, along with our Archer and Baron. However, there are so many hours in a day, we have set a course, and we plan to follow it, regardless of the obstacles we face.We think it is a good course, and we are certain it is one no other developer is following, and we hope that in the long term that it is one that you, our customers, will appreciate. :)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[N400QW 205]

Sorry to hear of your loss Lou, we understand that loss much too well.As to our comments in this forum, it began with the second posters reference to the Eaglesoft Sandel 3308 as used in your Bonanza and I'm sure you remember that it was a "one off" project without further support from Eaglesoft.Further, I posted to the effect that the thread would be more valuable if JL would simply describe which of his products are FSX ready and which are not so users would be better informed. JL answered by pointing us to his site which shows the weather gauge as the only FSX ready product at the moment.Having known you both for a awhile, we assumed that your schedule was the reason for the lack of FSX ready products and it appears from your post that our assumption was correct.A post attacking Eaglesoft and its products was way over the top since the question from the OP had already been answered by JL.:-roll

[jrhoads 6]

:-)

[jmig 100]

Ron, Jim, Lou and Jean Luc, I write this to each of you and to any other developer who may read this post. I am not affiliated with any flight simming company or organization. I am the president and senior partner of a company totally divorced from flying of any type, which I founded ten years ago. I am a licenced pilot, AOPA member and flew fighters in the military. What I am about to say are my thoughts and words only. Still, if I read the tone and emotional undercurrents correctly, I am not alone in my views.I do not think I have any hidden agendas. I am your favorite kind of person; a consumer who has enough money to purchase what appeals to him. I have purchased products from each of your companies with the exception of Eaglesoft. The only reason I have not purchased from Eaglesoft is that none of its aircraft currently appeal to me and the type of flying I enjoy. If they make one, I will buy it.I consider each of you to be talented, enterprising, and, most importantly, you have the perseverance to see something through to completion. Each of you is currently a victim of your own success. You developed a loyal following of consumers who enjoyed your products in past versions of MSFS. While Microsoft certainly hasn

[jrhoads 6]

Hi John,Actually, I have nothing in this at all. And I rarely ever post in public forums unless it is our own. Truth? I just wanted to stir the pot a little. :-) What any other company does is no concern of mine. I am much to busy and certainly much too busy to participate in these type of threads.Sorry about that. It just looked like fun and I see it did produce a knee jerk. :-) Now, back to real work.

[N400QW 205]

John,Just for the sake of accuracy, Eaglesoft has rebuilt and made available each of its FS9 aircraft for FSX with the exception of our CX 750 2.0.This is a milestone for us given the challenges and worload involved.No excuses from us with regard to our CX 750 2.0 but will say the magnitude of such a project along with simultaneous development of current projects represents a time crunch that we cannot change. In short, we are peddeling as fast as we can.:-lol To the unitiated, this may seem like a "promises, promises" situation but we can assure you that we are not in the habit of making empty statements and our track record with regard to FSX development should provide some assurance to those who know us and own our products.

[FlyingsCool 3]

You do realize you didn't have to move the airplane folder to the SimObjectsAirplanes folder? If you edit your fsx.cfg file and add the FSXAircraft folder as a relevant path for aircraft (see the section), then FS will just find your airplanes there, too.I highly recommend this as having separate folders for your various aircraft makes it easier to manage them without accidentally destroying something else. Plus, then all those FS9 installers will just work, no fussing around.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180