Dreamfleet Dakota Feedback if you dont mind

[albar965 1,046]

To get the instruments clear you need a high anti aliasing level or/and a high screen resolution. OK - both of these settings suck performance too, but I use these anyway.To me the instruments seem to be more fluid than the instruments in other planes that were modelled the "classic" way.Alex

[Geofa 108]

I have the highest AA and a screen res of of 1920. Zoom in on them at all (I use tracker ir) and they don't stay sharp.They just don't respond or have the real life sensitivity that the Dakota has (let alone a full working Garmin 430). The Reality xp instruments which go with the Dakota (and are sold seperately) and Real Air are the only instruments in the flight sim world I have found that duplicate the real thing in terms of smoothness and response.If you have to fight to hold your altitude within 50 ft. (by hand of course), or can't hold a 700 fpm decent on an ils, or hold a coordinated turn by use of the Ai it just doesn't do it for me.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[n4gix 4,947]

>Of course modelling 3d instruments takes a lot more time than>flat panels......and drives up the final costs, since TWO sets of gauges need to be developed... and synchronized.Modeled 3d gauges are really only practical if there are no plans to supply 2d panel and gauges in the package at all.

[Manny 1,293]

I know I am going to get stoned to death for this... But ..what the heck.Why are we still in 2D mode? Are there people still flying from a fixed immovable plane? LOL :)Manny

[bkeske 0]

Thank goodness there are still panels that use primarily 2D gauges, as it allows me to modify planes like the older version of the Dreemfleet FSX Dakota like this:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188641.jpgI could not have done this with radios that were included in the 3D model. I prefer choices. Better yet, these radios and gauges work like the real deal....all of them. Lou even provided users the opportunity to add the right hand panels within the model. God bless him ;)I still have the 'current Lou version' stock as Lou flies her (which I use with the current real life paint job). I also appreciate that...and is the same reason I won't change the panel in my ES Twin Comanche....it's just like the real thing...just wished the GPS units worked a bit better, but as I understand, ES may be working on their own models of those gauges.I just got done flying the Aerosoft DH-2 Beaver, as much as I like the aircraft, the simplified radios that include 3D knobs frustrate me, as I cannot replace them with more realistic Friendly Panel versions. I'll take good 2D gauges and radios that function like the real thing any day.Bottom line, the DF Dakota wins out hands down in 'feeling right' in the cockpit, and flying her than many (if not all) of my aircraft that utilize 3D knobs. And again, that is more important to me, the overall 'feeling' within the VC, and how it performs.

[Guest DreamFleet]

Thats' very kind of you to say, Brian, but you really do not need that Autopilot! (I do not even think it is certified for the Dakota, but I could be wrong) ;) However, at least we provided the opportunity to add a radio stack on the right side (does not exist on the real thing), and even provided filler plates along with actual textures to show the empty stack when no filler plate is installed.Geoff, well, we both spend enough time in the real things, so...We could have done all this 3D stuff on the Dakota's panel, but what was the point? Do it for the sake of it? It really does not make it any more "realistic". Like it or not.Heck we had 3D screws on the instrument panel originally, but I did not like them as we would have needed a bunch of different textures to make them truly look good. I told Chuck Jodry to take them out, and we would deal with the screws I had on the texture from the FS9 version.Heck, I fly this plane for real, and looking at the screen shot posted above, this is what I see in the real thing (aside from Brian's avionics mods).For those who do not use 2D panels, that's fine but, guess what?As long as MS supports them we will include them and that means we need gauges that will work with both, and you cannot put 3D gauges in a 2D panel.Our gauges are smooth running and highly accurate. Sorry if we do not have a 3D knob or switch. However the switches and knobs work as they should when clicked on, and are photos of the real thing. I guess no one noticed the continuous night light dimming on most of the gauges. Hmmmm... what other FS aircraft has that? I spend a lot of time looking at real instrument panels, often under conditions that FS will never truly simulate, and since the time I entered this business, 8 years ago, endeavored to provide highly accurate aircraft and panels, and I still feel that we deliver such. It's not as though I look at photos from the web. I fly these planes, and have been doing such for some 4 decades. I am trying to provide a level of reality that is accurate, without adding stuff that is somewhat irrelevant and just adds to performance hits and cost.But, what the heck would I know as I am cursed with flying for real. I guess not having a 3D switch or knob makes the panel less functional, and somehow takes one away from reality. In my opinion it does not. But that is just my opinion.We're trying to keep prices somewhat reasonable while also catering to two versions of FS, along with XP and Vista, and some insane monetary exchange rates these days and, guess what? FSX is not exactly winning any awards when it comes to sales of aircraft add-ons. FSX + Vista is no day at the beach, and for those with crash problems with Vista, we are working on solving them, provided Vista can settle down and not change from week to week.Maybe I should give up the real thing, and worry more about a 3D gauge or switch, not that such makes anything more realistic, as you cannot touch it with your hand anyway. As to those who suggest that we have different versions for those who want all the 3D knobs and switches and gauges, and those who realize that such is somewhat irrelevant, who is going to pay for such? I read at the Sim Outhouse forums that we should have modeled the gauge bezels. Guess what? The gauge bezels in the Dakota are flush with the panel, they do not protrude from it! Yes, I added a little drop shadow to the texture below the gauges (very little) as I know there are those who think that the bezels protrude.If you do not like the Dakota and think it is not "real" because it lacks 3D gauges and switches then do not buy it, it is as simple as that. However, those gauges run as smooth as any 3D gauge, and you get them both in the VC and 2D panels.However, regardless if it has a 3D knob or switch, it is as close as you will get to the real thing, without having to spend $160 an hour to operate one. Maybe that is "disconcerting" to some. Well, that's life.No offense intended to anyone.I do not post here often, but when I do I tell it like it is. Flame me all you wish. I've been there and done that too.I do not post here to get anyone to buy a DreamFleet aircraft, but I will express my opinion at times. Otherwise, we do what we do, and if you do not like it, then don't buy it.No doubt that there is no "wow" factor to the Dakota. I'll admit it. Then again, in real life, the only wow factor to the Dakota is when you take off on a hot day with full fuel and full seats and fly for some 700 nm, and that is something most light aircraft cannot do. Heck, even a Columbia 400 cannot handle full fuel and 4 adults!She doesn't spin, doesn't do aerobatics, doesn't do 190 kts, and cannot autoland, she is what she is, and in real life she still remains one incredible plane.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[Guest SkullxBones]

Lou, I feel for you, I really do. I would hate to be in the position you are in dealing with all the complexities of FSX.You will get no argument from me that the Dakota performs great and the gauges are first class. But as a consumer, I know what I like and owning other aircraft that have 3D switches and knobs just looks more convincing to me on a purely eye candy level. And I spend a lot of money on different graphic products to make FSX look convincing.From my point of view, I would have gladly paid more money if I could have gotten a full 3D panel in the Dakota. I realize many consumers would not, but I wish we had the choice from developers to buy a stripped down less expensive model or a full blast expensive version for those of us that want all the bells and whistles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the Dakota a stripped down model, Just would have preferred more eye candy.

[G7USL 117]

>Any of you guys with vista32 crashes read this thread:>>http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=182272>>See if it helps, >>Also, RE the not-sharp VC, here's a reduced size screen shot>and this is what I see, looks quite clear to me. The only>thing that isn't (and has been been since FS2004) is the>Garmin GNS430>>Good grief Ryan - How do manage to fly from that position? ;) lol

[G7USL 117]

>I know I am going to get stoned to death for this... But>..what the heck.>>Why are we still in 2D mode? Are there people still flying>from a fixed immovable plane? >>LOL :)>>>Manny>Yes, they are buying the new Fokker 70/100.......... nto for me though ;)

[virtualstuff 759]

>>Any of you guys with vista32 crashes read this thread:>>>>http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=182272>>>>See if it helps, >>>>Also, RE the not-sharp VC, here's a reduced size screen shot>>and this is what I see, looks quite clear to me. The only>>thing that isn't (and has been been since FS2004) is the>>Garmin GNS430>>>Good grief Ryan - How do manage to fly from that position? ;)>lol:-lolhttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[rhodges 6]

Hello Lou:"For those who do not use 2D panels, that's fine but, guess what?As long as MS supports them we will include them.......She doesn't spin, doesn't do aerobatics, doesn't do 190 kts, and cannot autoland, she is what she is, and in real life she still remains one incredible plane."Thank God, and you!!!!I don't always agree with your view, but I sure respect it.Old fashioned, true, but I am one of the few (if it is few) that seldom use 3d panels. They are beautiful in at least some cases, let me sightsee easier, and may include all kinds of neat stuff, but these old eyes always have difficulty functioning with them if I want to fly rather than sit there and look at eyecandy. To me personally the 2D route is still my preference due primarily to FUNCTIONAL reality. I hope they never disappear.My real world time preceeded the Dakota when the simple Cherokee 235 was still the title of its ancestor, but it was close. The 235 was unique IMHO as obviously the Dakota came to be.Much of my time was in birds as a CFI that made the 235 look like the #### of the walk (Luscombs, Cessna 120/140's, and my J3 Cub). PA28-180's were as close to the 235 that I ever got to fly (although the PA24-250 sure was a pleasure, but that is a bird of another feather). It amazes me what so many expect to see in panels of that era. Eye candy certainly was not the thing. It also amazes me how many choose to bad mouth the contribution in question (and many others) rather than simply not buying them and moving on. The same goes for freeware contributions. Nobody has forced us to buy or download anything. Appreciation whether one bites or not seems to not be possible for some folk.Your Dakota is the next thing on my wish list although it may have to wait until next month. To this old memory, she appears to me to be just about the closest thing to the real thing possible (definitely including the panel).Thanks again. I hope you can grow thick skin and keep up the good works. Respectfully:RTH

[bkeske 0]

>Thats' very kind of you to say, Brian, but you really do not>need that Autopilot! (I do not even think it is certified for>the Dakota, but I could be wrong) Thanks for the insight Lou.....mmmmm....well, perhaps I'll take the AP out and shift things around. I was looking for a more 'authentic' radio set for the 'original paint scheme' version, and yea, I know I was probably taking some liberties regardless ;) ....just leaving the 430 in was a bit of an upgrade, but I just hate to lose that beautiful 'gauge' while flying.After only a short time purchasing it, the Dakota is already in my top ten aircraft in FSX in terms of hours flown.

[spilok 1,136]

Lou,I'm really looking forward to your NEW version of the Dakota so that I can enjoy this "Vista-compatible" plane. I've decided to keep it in its unworking version until you do. I do not want to do acrobatics in Vista to make it work, since everything else I've purchased does work. Thanks for addressing the issue, and I look forward to the new version.Stan

[Geofa 108]

Hey Stan-I finally got my system back today after a month of frustration.I had no problem again with the Dakota and Vista 32.I am wondering if you would want to try right clicking your "computer" icon, selecting properties, and the "advanced system settings". Click on the advanced tab, and under performance click "settings". Click Data Execution Prevention and see or select the first option "Turn on Dep for essential windows programs...."The reason I mention this is after reinstalling, running ulimate defrag, and a few other programs would crash. After selecting this everything runs fine... perhaps worth a try!http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Geofa 108]

Andre/Dave-That is how it looks when you drop your approach plates on the floor during the approach! :-lol I've of course never done that...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/