Sign in to follow this  
Guest mikehaska

Free payware-quality aircraft....

Recommended Posts

Hey all, most of you probably know by now that there have been at least 2 aircraft recently downloaded to the library that are of payware quality. I really, really appreciate them both. 1. ATR by S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Don't forget Daviator's Stearman and Bill Lyons' Fleet Canuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the look of the ATR aircraft and panel - and also the comprehensive checklist.But, a very quick fly around in it kind of felt wrong. It seems to have a model plane feel about it -- surely such a large aircraft would feel a lot heavier in the air. Try it and tell me -- I wouldn't know really and I don't want to "knock" the author -- it really is a great aircraft but something feels wrong with it.Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry, I agree. However, I am using an air file from a different ATR. I think the one that came with this ATR is from the default Cessna caravan. Try a different airfile and see if it changes your mind.dek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried the ATR. I did download the Malibou. No offense intended, but no VC and not even remotely close to what we would expect from payware. Since I've stepped up to payware titles like the Arrow II and Commanche, I've lost interest in most freeware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To qualify for "payware" quality recognition there should be no major gaps in avionics area. Are Garmin units correctly simulated on the Meridian ? Probably not even close. How about the ATR ? You would really need a major effort involving pilots that actually fly these airplanes. No offense to those who created these airplanes but payware really puts different kind of requirements on your product. I would say Bill Grabowski's ERJ-145 panel is the closest I have seen a freeware approaching payware quality. No wonder it receievd the Avsim 5 star award.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd throw in a vote of appreciation for the excellent freeware Falcon 50, also!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again....sigh!Can we then assume that every payware aircraft produced has a full VC and a 100% accurate avionics suite? I think not. I could keep this forum busy for quite a while listing all the payware planes I've seen that have major deficiencies.I do believe that I posted a message back when I started the Meridian project that I was not a gauge designer and I was not even going to attempt the avionics in the Meridian. But I've seen endless complaints about every aspect of the Meridian since I released it. Both here and in e-mail. I'm flooded with it. I didn't get nearly the grief with my larger aircraft. For some reason the GA crowd here seems to think that someone who spends 100+ hours of their free time creating an aircraft, and then offers it to others for nothing has some sort of obligation to build it to exacting specifications or it just doesn't measure up. Tell you what, I've done my last GA aircraft, that's for sure. I started designing aircraft for my own use. I build them to my own requirements and then offer them to anyone else that wants to use them. Period. I've never attempted to make them "perfect". Never had any desire to. Mike Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mike Stone.........Please do not let this bother you! I really like and enjoy your Meridian! Thank you for your efforts. I cannot do it at all! I fly your plane all of the time.Vernon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any Garmin units that you'd find in the Meridian have been modeled by anybody------------ have they? !!!!! L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mike,Congrats on your fine work. I especially like the L-1011 especially with Garry Smith's reflective textures. Great Job !Can I inject a comment here ? Unfortunately, Michael J and some other users are absolutely obsessed with perceived, real or imagined shortcomings of all sorts in any project. Some folks are just impossible to please no matter how hard you try. Most critics contribute nothing to FS development and are instead happy to throw rocks at hardworking, generous folks like your good self. They rarely have any real understanding of the inherent limits of the simulator, or even understand real aircraft systems ... and in their ignorance, they can be most unreasonable. As you know - as a developer which Michael J is not - there ARE limitations even the most determined developer cannot overcome.Mate, this stuff happens (in these Forums more than most), and it does not matter two hoots whether a project is Freeware or Payware : these folks can never be satisfied. Don't let them get the better of you. Keep up the good work.Best wishes,Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Unfortunately, Michael J and some other users are absolutely >obsessed with perceived, real or imagined shortcomings of >all sorts in any project. Some folks are just impossible to >please no matter how hard you try. You Steve obviously suffer from selective reading syndrome - you see only posts that support your point of view. You have right to do that. I have expressed full satisfaction with quite a few products on numerous forums but you wouldn't care, would you ?. But going back to the original post - it was about the "payware" quality and reasonable people may differ what this term means. I expressed my opinion what I think it implies for me. I have right to do that too.I also must say I consider resorting to personal attacks in very poor taste. Clearly you think otherwise. Good day.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blast it! I did't mean to start any controversy by my remarks. I should have added "IMHO". Sorry, but freeware aircraft of this calibur do not come by every day, and maybe I just wanted to show my appreciation. Perhaps freeware quality is in the eyes of the beholder. I would add more but I think I'll go for a short flight in the Falcon 50. Don't slip with full flaps (in a Cessna)! dek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:Good. These GA-realism guys are a pain in the ##### anyway. There are those of us who are still capable of engaging our imagination while enjoying this hobby, and we don't require every button, switch and gauge to be in the right place. The act of flight alone is ample stimulus, and enogh to keep us addicted for hours on end. For the rest, well, pay for it if you must. Keep up the good work, Mike, I love what you do, especially with the heavies....though I think I'll check out that Meridian! Watching and Waiting for More, Alex CN562ZMinneapolis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Mike Stone.You will find critics everywhere, with few constructive criticism.Ignore them !!!I enjoy your planes, particularly The Meridian.I have not been a GA enthusiast til the arrival of planes like those from FSD-International,DF Archer II (all payware ) and freewares like your Meridian Malibu. Now I once in a while fly VFR and enjoying more my FS2002, and the light jet Falcon 50.Keep up your work. Lot of us appreciate it a LOT.Edmundo Cardenas van Grieken/SVMICaracas, Venezuela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, just to point out that there is a world of difference between most freeware and what we expect from up-to-date, top quality payware. People who design for free should please themselves, and nobody else. But people who prefer to fly the highest-quality, most full-featured models should be willing to pay for the privilege, as I am. It's unfair to freeware designers to compare their work to payware products that were the result of a more rigorous and intensive development process. At the same time, it unfairly diminishes the work of payware designers to compare their work to freeware. Of course, there is poor quality payware, along with oceans of poor quality freeware. And every now and then, a freeware product like the Falcon comes along and raises the bar for everyone.I am only talking about aircraft since I don't download freeware scenery and know nothing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> It's unfair to freeware designers to >compare their work to payware products that were the result >of a more rigorous and intensive development process. Oh -- I don't know. As far as I can see, there are many freeware designers whose work is far superior to the default Microsoft payware that came with the Sim.Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LarryThe Avidyne has been modelled and I believe someone is working the Garmin 530/430 unit.Even the programme offered by Garmin as a training aid for the real unit is just a ghost of the actual unit only offering a few functions(I have it)No one can demand anything from people like Mike Stone who is a superb artist in his field.Where you get major projects like the Falcon 50(freeware) or the Dreamfleet warrior (paywhere)they are both projects where others with different skills have been involved.Whether they are freeware or payware is irrelevant other than to the fact that people can expect a certain standard from payware but cannot expect anything from something which is freely given.People should have the right to make constructive positive "observations" (not criticisms :-)and shouldnt feel threatened or embarassed by making them (we are all in this together)But they dont have a right to demand anything.Now if anyone wants to make a VC or a more detailed panel or better airfile or repaint the aircraft to their taste they can always ask Mikes permission.Part of the problem has to be that peoples expectations are growing as aircraft completeness grows.Maybe it is too much to expect everything from one guy and others should offer to take part in these projects in areas that they specialise in themselves.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry agreedIf you take the Falcon 50 that was a long, long project and involved specialists in other areas of the aircraft.Not everyone wants to commit so much time to just a single aircraft and prefer to work a number of maybe not so complete designs.Most freeware designers are only too happy to give permission to others to tailor the aircraft to their own specification whether that is building a VC or whatever.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, Mike, I pretty much download anything that you release and end up enjoying it. For somebody who dedicates their freetime as a labor of love, I thank you. Now to those who feel there are "glaring" errors in some of the freeware releases, fine, but rather than b*tch about it, do something to fix or improve the perceived problem. I am just now starting to play with some repaints and getting into the nuts and bolt of GMAX (when the wife and when the 4 month old daughter both allow mw time to) in hopes of creating some releases that I hope are half as good as releases by Mike and others. I don't think that Mike is such a prima donna that he would not allow you to release an update or patch on your own or through him. He seems to be in this for the enjoyment, and quite honestly, takes constructive criticism a lot better than some payware and freeware authors of late. Just my 2 cents, now lets get back to having some fun flying.MikeKOCF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an old chestnut of an issue but it always seems to produce long threads. I'd sum it all up by saying:1. However bad a freeware aircraft is, anyone who complains about it publicly is a dunce. They're free, dammit. There is nothing more exciting than downloading a new freeware aircraft to find that it matches or, in many cases, exceeds what is available in the payware world. It's like Christmas every day for me. And if it's not your cup of tea? Delete it.2. If something is sold to the simming community, it should be good. There are many excellent payware products available, but just as many "FS2002-compatible" commercial add-ons that fall well short of current design development. That, we have every right to complain about, in my view. 4. Many payware products are put together by teams of ex-freeware designers - particularly, it seems, since the introduction of FS2002 and the recent surge in popularity of simming. Seems many good names are jumping on the bandwagon - but don't forget where they all started. Support freeware, don't criticize it - ##### off great designers like Mike Stone to your own detriment - and let's keep all this wonderful variety in our flying. I, for one, will continue to download any GA aircraft that Mike or his peers produce.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry, can you point me toward a few? I would love to try them out.On the whole, I'm fairly positive about the stock FS2002 aircraft. Some of the flight models could definitely be improved, see for example Steve Small's work for the Baron 58. But they looked pretty good and the panels were very functional. Maybe not photo-realistic, but legible and easy to use. And I believe a lot of work had gone into making those models framerate-friendly, something payware designers could learn from. It made a huge difference for me on my old P3 system (I'm happy to say that my new P4 system can handle anything I throw at it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this