Super80 / EFIS

[757FO 143]

Not sure if this has been already posted, but here goes.. looking forward to fly this puppy!!!http://www.coolsky.no/super80pro/super80pro.htmJohn

[Petraeus 147]

It was posted over at FlightSim and simFlight, but not at Avsim. Those other sites are often more reliable for news items.It's certainly something to look forward to, if Coolsky can keep the performance as good as their current 'clockwork cockpit' MD80.Petraeus

[Guest NoobPilot]

I hope there's some sort of upgrade from the steam cockpit for a lower price... because this thing looks pretty good.

[Dirk98 354]

Yes, I can't wait to buy this new toy from Coolsky.

[ahuimanu 50]

It's a buy without worry for me. Espen and Flight One have produced a winner in this product. I have full confidence that this "glass" update will be great and relatively problem free. And, in the event of problems, Espen will handle it promptly and professionally.Great news... thanks for sharing.

[MatthewS 761]

Having bought the excellent Super80 I will definitely be purchasing the EFD pro version.The current Coolsky super 80 is very nice on FPS and according to the author the new EFD version is just as nice.Plus its a pure FSX product! Congrats to Coolsky for embracing FSX and not wasting time developing a version for FS9.:)

[eldar2112 10]

And I believe I did see on the CoolSky site about a discount for Super80 owners. What a fantastic aircraft for Flightsim. I love the kind of realism packed into the current Super80.Thank you,KailFlightSimmer since 1987C2D E6850 3.0GHz 1333FSBXFX Nforce 680i LT SLI2x XFX 8800GT 512MB SLI'd4GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 800MHzCreative SB Audigy2 ZSUltra Xfinity 600W SLI PSUSeagate 320GB 7200RPM 16MB SATA-3GB/S HDWindows XP SP2 / FSX SP2 / FS9 SP1

[Guest NoobPilot]

If I recall correctly, the original one without glass was completely redeveloped for FSX. They're great. I somehow get more FPS in them then the default C172.

[Dirk98 354]

>If I recall correctly, the original one without glass was>completely redeveloped for FSX. They're great. I somehow get>more FPS in them then the default C172. Very true, it is the best performer in FSX. I hope it will stay that way with the avionics upgrade, then it will fly for a long time on my current system. I even hope fs2crew will take it on. The only thing that was missing in it for me originally (I didn't even hope for) was the FMC/avionics upgrade package.

[Guest PPSFA]

This is one of my favorites, I definatly will get the new version.XP Pro SP2-FSX SP2AMD FX60-8800GTS-2 Gigs RAMFEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuffComputer optomized by www.fs-gs.com

[Daveo 36]

>This is one of my favorites, I definatly will get the new>version.>>>XP Pro SP2-FSX SP2>AMD FX60-8800GTS-2 Gigs RAM>FEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuff>Computer optomized by www.fs-gs.comSame here. Especially after flying on one from KATL to KFLL. :-)

[blueridgeflyer 1]

>Not sure if this has been already posted, but here goes..>looking forward to fly this puppy!!!>http://www.coolsky.no/super80pro/super80pro.htm>JohnI sincerely hope that they address the flight model with regard to pitch attitude & lift/drag. Anyone know if the FM will get an update?

[Steve Halpern 176]

There will be some optional model adjustments in the main user interface for the product.There were 2 schools of thought here... have it fly by the numbers as close as possible, or have the numbers slightly adjusted to allow for different pitch at various speeds.So, we plan to include both as an option.

[blueridgeflyer 1]

>There will be some optional model adjustments in the main>user interface for the product.>>There were 2 schools of thought here... have it fly by the>numbers as close as possible, or have the numbers slightly>adjusted to allow for different pitch at various speeds.>>So, we plan to include both as an option.>>>>Steve, Thanks for providing this information. But, why not provide one consolidated FM that does both? MD2006's FM has pitch characteristics that are very accurate and meets the performance parameters very well. I infer from your comment that I will have to sacrifice realism by selecting a model preference. Thank you,

[Steve Halpern 176]

This is because there are hidden numbers some do not see, but others do see, or in fact, check out.So, if we hit speeds exactly to the published book and tables, and in order to get these in FSX or FS9, the sim engine renders pitch slightly off (but we still have the numbers right on). FSX/FS9 have not handled the "dart type" flight models perfectly (or could we say easily). It may be that FSX improves this a little.Maybe takeoff speeds could be the same, but then stall speed at xx level of flaps may change if this was tweaked.So it is a balancing act for sure. And when you satisfy one, you find someone that discovers something else that has been affected, like the pitch at slow deliberate speeds just before stall.I cannot speak in regards to MD2006's flight model, but it would not surprise me that some of the numbers are not exactly to the chart the way Jerry Beckwith's models tend to be. They may be... but still, one person happy with adjustments in may cases equals a post about something not quite right (with a tweak). So hopefully some balance has been found in what will be provided.