jrhoads

Thank you for your comments and consideration.Your input and opinions are noted.Best Regards,Jim Rhoads

Hi Dilloll0Thank you for your comments and opinion.It is understood and respected. No need to continue making it.Best Regards,Jim Rhoads

Hi JSacks,From myself and the team members (all of them) :-) Thank you. Best,Jim Rhoads

Yes, but it is part of a much more comprehensive package.And targeted to a different market.Regards,Jim Rhoads

Hi Randy,Thank you for the kind compliments.Actually, Lou had nothing to do with the development of the 172R by Flight1. I did. So did Jerry Beckwith, Ed Struzynski, Roger Dial and a handful of other beta testers that I count on and value very much. But I am sure Lou has enough time in 172's that he could give you a good assessment.Dilloll0 has had an axe to grind with us since day one and it is a personal which he seems to take every opportunity to share... one about night lighting. Although he was confused about what he wanted and what a real 172R has. The way we did the VC lighting dependency was and issue as well (which has been corrected in an upcoming patch) for some reason he has discredited the rest of the plane because of this issue. That

>I wouldnt give my>source stuff away either...but Im not issuing payware.>>Eric>And being payware is even more reason not to release source.Ask the MS team if they will give you the source files Eric.It's payware isnt it? I assure you I won't be.I believe Roger's issue was more about that he is essentially handing over and doing most of the work for the painter which equates to no real thinking on the part of the painter. This point can surely be argued by both perspectives.Bottom line is that he did correct the templates (several times now)So why are you continuing this topic? Eric, I have bent over backwards for you many times as a customer, but most of the posts I see from you are geared at digging at us for something. Not sure I understand why?Jim Rhoads

>The F1 172 was apparantly a bigger project intended for>flight training and was downsized for public consumption. To>me it feels this way. The panel graphics are super crisp which>is great for training, but that doesn't necessarly translate>into giving you the feeling of sitting in the actual aircraft.Hi Wingfat,Thank you for your comments, however I respectfully disagree with the above.... If you get a chance to sit in a "new" 172R, look straight ahead and tell me what you see. Forget about peripheral vision. Look directly in front of you. This is exactly what you see in the F1 172R.I think so many people are used to the typical FS look that encompasses a broader view and it is expected as "realistic" but that

>Jim>As we go higher up the scale better means more expensive which>means we have to fly someone elses aircraft.>>But even in the aircraft I am flying with its fancy electronic>displays and autopilot systems way above the weather I was>used to operating in I wonder???>>thanks>>PeterMy pleasure. I know what you mean...I fly some pretty cool airplanes as well, but I am pretty happy they are not mine! My old Cherokee is about all I can afford.I think it's important not to lose grasp of the basics.The very thing that made you wake up and go to bed thinking about airplanes. (and still do!)I know that you know... the corporate world is dog eat dog. These guys would cut their Grandma's throat to get a position and that isn

Ok, I am not sure what part of this conversation you dont understand Dillon. We did this a certain way to accomodate the larger concerns to us which were support of 3rd party backlighting on the gauges.We are not changing this...Ok let me check something.... (kick kick kick)Yep. It's official the horse really is dead. I'm not kicking it anymore.No more from me.Jim Rhoads

>>I'm not trying to bash a great product here. >Really? I guess I am confused then.I am sorry you disagree with our lighting technique, but it is obvious that I wont be able to explain it to your satisfaction.This is not a training aircraft and it is not one that was developed to train at night even though you want it to be so.The lighting will not be changed in this entertainment version of the software but you are welcome to change it anyway you like as referenced prior.Jim Rhoads

It reminds me of a story....There once was a pilot flying along in his Piper Cub. He looked up and saw a twin engine aircraft passing by. As he looked up he said... Now man, that is really flying!The twin engine pilot looked up and saw a jetliner passing by.As the twin engine pilot looked up he said...Now man, that is really flying!The jetliner pilot looked up and saw a fighter jet passing by.As the jetliner pilot looked up he said...Now man, that is really flying!The fighter pilot looked up and saw the space shuttle passing by.As the fighter pilot looked up he said...Now man, that is really flying!The space shuttle pilot "looked down" and saw the Piper Cub flying along. As the space shuttle pilot "looked down" he said...Now man, that is really flying!Its all a matter of perspective. For me? I am happy to be flying. Period.Regards,Jim Rhoads

>I think they don't do lights like this for performance>reasons. >...>>Michael J.>Michael J. is correct. Not only is the above picture not the correct kind of lighting for the 172R, but to model it in this way can affect performance.As for me being a bit harsh, maybe... But as any developer can testify, it is a common and easy practice of some users to broadcast requests, comments,accusations or expectations that are not based on either reality or what can be done reasonably without affecting other elements of the simulator and a broad user base.If that offends, than my apologies, however, it would be appreciated as well, to research what it is you are asking for with regards to the particular model and limitations or effects to the simulator before assuming we did something wrong.We are always open to suggestions or comments, but we do things certain ways for certain reasons and it all takes into account the wide range of users. + I feel quite confident that we did do a pretty good job at representing the 172R as well as can be done in this version of the simulator.Regards,Jim Rhoads

Your picture does not show a 172R panel.Your picture shows an older 172 with post lights.In the future, before you light a fiery spear, you might want to do a little homework on the kind of lighting a 172R has.Jim Rhoads

>My account was promptly credited after I agreed to erase>everything related to the software off of my computer.>>That's why I will continue to purchase from Flight 1 with>confidence. They are quite a class act.>>Wilson>>Hi Wilson,Thanks. Thats the way business is supposed to be done isn't it?Let us know if we can help you in the future.Regards,Jim RhoadsFlight1

>This post was not meant as a slight to the great guys at F1>or their C172. I was merely pointing out that the Default>C172 isn't that bad, and that the flight one aircraft has it's>quirks...great job guys, and keep up the work. >>EvanHi Evan,Understood and thank you.But there is also a difference between quirks and certain areas of flight which are based on technique. I have never seen any aircraft (and I fly plenty of them) that would depart soil in the takeoff trim position and would not require a trim change once airborne.That is the point that Steve and I are making.Sure I can distribute (and probably will now) a configuration that will darn near auto fly the aircraft once airborne and continue to, but that aint real life. And as Steve pointed out, this is not a training application. It is a entertainment "port" of our training application.Evan, where do you fly out of?Regards,Jim Rhoads

Hi Evan,Thanks for your comments. Where do you fly out of?Regards,Jim Rhoads

>Thanks for the infos. Although I fail to see what the>controls shall have to do with it.It has everything to do with it.>1. Take out P-factor and torque, leave general realism slider>at full. Trim to takeoff setting, max. allowable fuel, Payload>Pilot and copilot, no baggage. Now throttle full forward and>don't touch the stick/yoke. The Flight1 C172 lifts off at>which speed and to which initial VS ?I hate to say this, but I am beginning to wonder if some folks have ever flown a real airplane. You never just stick the trim on center and leave it alone during a climb and expect it to stay there and fly pretty. Besides, every trim indicator I have ever seen isn't exactly "center" when it is placed on the center trim position. It is a starting point. Wind, temp airspeed, pitch, etc. all factor in and I guarantee you will trim the airplane when transitioning from ground to air.>2. Fly level at a certain altitude (say which you used), well>trimmed at a certain speed (e.g. 100kt). Note rpm. Now move>throttle full forward for 5-10 seconds, then return to the>original setting. Does the plane end up at 100 kt and approx.Anytime you change speed, power or pitch, you better get ready to trim.Jim Rhoads

>Haven't succeeded in finding any records on the production of>the R model. Here is a side view of an R NAVII:>http://www.westwindaviation.com/sales_N9581G.pdf>GregIf all you are dinging us for is your own interperated observation of "dihedral" I would say we did pretty good and I will take that as a compliment. :) Regards,Jim Rhoads

>OK Jim here's the plan... I'll sneak out of work early>tomorrow. You will plan on realesing no later than mid>afternoon. >>GregWhy wait until tomorrow. She's available now...:-) http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=esd172

>Please say I'm not seeing that correctly...Ok, your not seeing correctly...Regards.Jim Rhoads

>Been waiting a loonng time for a version with pants/fairings.>Disappointed they didn't show that in the gallery.>>CraigYou mean like this one?http://www.flight1software.com/172/images/172_wp.jpg

You really should consider getting out more.As they always say...I guess no good dead goes unpunished.Amazing.Jim Rhoads

I actually got inside boomerang some years back when it was still prototype. An incredible plane. I might have to dig up some pics..Jim Rhoads

>Hi Tom.>>I knew Tom Main was full of it, but just had to check! :-lol>>I too could discuss history, at very great length, but I have>instead decided to go AOPA Expo a week later. Hey, been to UAL>Denver and the Doubletree already. I want to go stay on the>Queen Mary again!>>Better to shop for toys for my Dakota than to discuss>"history".Well very good then!I will be at AOPA too and quite possibly the Queen Mary myself.Maybe we can catch up on some old times ourselves! Regards,Jim Rhoads

>Jim I'd be interested in knowing which of the two airplanes>you would class as the ford pickup... :-)>>EricI'll let you guess that one Eric.. :) Nothing wrong with a Ford pickup. It just does different things than a Corvette. Please dont ask me what it does differently. :-lol Regards,Jim Rhoads