Jump to content

lateagain

Members
  • Content Count

    382
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lateagain

  1. Well I guess "Bob" might appreciate the detail and it might be great eyecandy in the screenshots but that seems a hell of a hit on FPS! Still as long as the other textures run maxed that's OK? Paying $33 or equivalent for HD scenery is pretty pointless if you have to run with sliders anything less than maxed? In fairness most ORBX stuff seems to be pretty good in that respect. There was a thread a while back where folk started feedback on the best and the worst of their fields in this respect. Useful for folk who haven't got the latest processors because some were reported as very good, some lower and a couple taking heavy hits. Info like that enables people to make an informed choice on their purchases but there wasn't really enough feedback to draw any proper conclusions. Of course there are so many variables in hardware and setups that it can only ever be a rough guide. Thanks for the feedback so far. PFJ and Tongass have my attention right now so it's "on the list" :lol: Geoff
  2. Aerosoft's forums say Early Next Year for the An-2 but I only just saw the Sibwings facebook page. Sibwings Bird Dog is one of my top 3 for FSX so I'll be waiting to see their An-2. Forget Christmas. Better to have a good tested release rather than something pushed out for an artificial deadline and then patched to cover the rushed release? I see the Twotter's a completely new model so NO discount for owners of the old one <_< but that was not that great IMHO anyway. Hope the engine control is better and the virtual cockpits needed a complete makeover and some decent wear and tear. Talking of Twotters and AN-2s I never understood why nobody did the original Radial Otter for FSX? I know they're rarer than Hen's teeth because their sturdy airframe made a retrofit turbine the fate of most survivors but that's too much like a taildragger Caravan to be interesting. Of course Old AND New would be great? Geoff
  3. Anyone want to give a short review? Frame rates etc? Geoff
  4. Hi Rob, A very interesting reply. I hope Enrico is sorted? ....but I'm more interested in your comments on the default FSX aircraft performance. As a RW PPL (not for a few years now) I always thought the ball looked very unrealistic and co-ordinated turns and side slips almost impossible with default aircraft. Despite a lot of criticism, in other respects many of the default aircraft aren't that bad. Obviously we buy payware for the superior modelling, skins and in some publishers case the much improved flight characteristics but I'm interested in how we might improve the default models in respect of the rudder and yaw? I don't suppose we can persuade you guys to share some suggestions for improvements? or point us at any existing files that cover this? Only the other day I was attempting a crosswind landing in blustery conditions and found that no "RW" input into FSX would rescue the situation which in reality would have been "lively" but achievable. BTW looking forward to the 172 :good: Geoff BTW I've got the Dukes in my virtual hanger but real life hasn't let me use them much yet.
  5. Cheers Kyle. A shame they didn't do an FSX makeover for it. A widely used feeder/regional and no one else has done one. Geoff
  6. Hi Dennis, To clarify my questions. The B1900 is the only type of interest to me thus far in PMDG's portfolio and I wondered if that was flyable in FSX? I appreciate the thread is about the DC6 and as a prop liner this too has my attention. My question about liveries is purely that nearly every thing I see at first glance has their corporate livery rather than any real airlines? Are the downloadable liveries free? My question on the DC6 liveries was really aimed at the developer and their initial release plans. Obviously with the following that PMDG has in time anything can and will follow. Sorry to be the odd one out but modern jetliners just don't do it for me. Obviously the 737 has set the grade for future commercial heavies but anything after analogue instruments just isn't my thing. ^_^ BTW as far as DC6 liveries are concerned I'd love to see some of the South American Meat hauler cargo versions. These looked as if they'd been through 10 lifetimes and still operated from grass and dirt strips. hauling beef. If it's beat up and operates from rough strips I'm interested. No FMC's just flying. :lol: Geoff
  7. Should have gone direct to UK2000 they've got some offers on at the moment.
  8. I don't have any PMDG titles yet as the only thing you've done so far that caught my eye is the early stuff for FS9. Acouple of questions? Do the titles come with many liveries? Are they seperate downloads? What do you have in mind for the DC6? BTW are the early regional liners you did for FS9 usable in FSX?
  9. Beat me to it. ^_^ If you wanted a shot to show why despite having uninstalled FS98 right after installing it (in disgust) I'm now back spending loads on FSX this is it. Heavies and long haul are NOT my thing at all but the airport detail available nowadays is excellent. Even my preferred Low N Slow GA/Bush fields have stunning detail and if (unlikely) I ever want to hit the heavies this shows just what's available. Geoff
  10. Couldn't agree more. Bought the package since my post and the excellent manual .pdf lets you check over each of the panels without having to load the models first. Anyone bored with punching data into yet another FMC might like to familiarise themselves with some of this classic instrumentation? Even those of us who learnt to fly with modern analogue instruments have some familiarisation to do with the older instrumentation and anything that brings a fresh challenge to the hobby has to be good? Haven't had much time on this yet but it's looking like a potential "Top Five" for me. The Sibwings Bird Dog being up there already with an excellent variety of cockpits. Geoff PS great to see folk reskinning this model already too .......oh! and Misty Moorings here I come :lol: .
  11. Perhaps it's worth reminding some of you that "Everybody who agrees with you is not necessarily your friend ....nor everybody that disagrees with you necessarily your enemy" :rolleyes: .....but I would add that anyone who seeks to stifle freedom of speech is definitely my enemy.
  12. I think H has hit a very significant nail squarely on the head here? I'm sure that he and I are not alone in having bought Sim add-ons only to realise they would be good next time we upgrade our system. You just have to put some aside to enjoy later? BTW as we're adding some positives now I just bought the new LHC Tri Pacer and haven't had time to do much with it yet but I think It's going to be up there with the SibWings Bird Dog for me. Geoff PS at the moment I'm mostly really interested in "Low n Slow" but I've kept a keen interest in what you tubeliner jocks like and even though I'm not looking for them now I'm sad to see so many aircraft that would be my first choice if I go that way being amongst those you're least happy with.
  13. Ecuador and the Galapagos. Quito, currently having a new airport built, the old one had a couple of interesting approaches and Loja's got a tricky approach too. With the NE US and Maritimes under way the obvious extension there is South down the East Coast.
  14. How does it fly Adam. The Eye Candy is first rate and that's one of the best "used" panels I've seen in anything. Got an e-mail heads up of it's release just before posting this. Good price for four variants too? Geoff
  15. and I should have added to that ....or a matter of taste or specific interest? This therad isn't about who's right and who's wrong. Stephen stated clearly at the start where he was coming from and sadly as is often the case that seems not to have been read by later posters? Geoff
  16. On the contrary many of us find this very useful. The thread is about PURCHASES. Not freeware models. Once you start selling any product it will be reviewed, crfiticised and compared with similar products. If purchasers find faults the discussion of them and the response of the producer to reports about these issues is of great interest to any prospective purchaser. As for the creator finding it painful?! To be blunt "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen". If people found fault with a car or a fridge freezer would you consider that complaining might hurt the producer? Further more in the wider world of commerce and competition the producer would expect feedback on faults, dissapointments, breakdowns etc. and have a system in place to ensure that issues were fixed to maintain their reputation in the market place. Go to ANY manufacturers web site and you'll find links to support, updates, recalls etc.etc. Commercial add-ons, just like games or any other software is a product and those who purchase it are consumers. The producers are required to make "goods must be of merchantable quality" and consumers have a right to expect that. That's not to say that a listing here makes that product NOT of merchantable quality but I note that some of the names coming up here more than others are amongst the higher priced add-ons and that with others several users have had problems getting them to work at all. Whenever I buy anything I research the available options, customer feedback, reviews etc. What I don't do is take "A's" opinion that product X is total rubbish any more seriously than "B's" opinion that it's "awsome". When the A's outweigh the B's it ought to ring alarm bells? ...but it still might be a specific problem. I trained as a designer. Design courses teach design by a series of criticisms. If you want to sell your designs and make a living you don't achieve that basking on the "Awsome" "Stunning" "Amazing" "Superb" feedback. You get most support and a better product listening to the "It's OK but this could be better" types of feedback. There's no rant here. Just folk posting reasonable comments on what they've regretted buying. Geoff
  17. :unsure: well we've all been there <_< Mind you as the "Most Regreted FSX purchases" thread makes clear not all reviews can be relied on :huh: . As glass cockpits become more of a reality in smaller aircraft this drain on resources seems to be an issue. Having flown RW before they were as widely used my flying training was all in analogue cockpits so I prefer models equipped like this but younger and newer pilots will obviously want to see this stuff work in the sim? Geoff
  18. The consumer issue aside, and that's not to dismiss your concerns, how does it actually fly at 24 fps. I have quite a few situations where the combination of scenery weather and aircraft won't reach that figure but with frames set to unlimited I can still fly reasonably. Obviously you've a high end system and having paid out for that you expect top performance but I'm sure others reading this would be interested in more detailed feedback. Not top of my "to get list" but one that had caught my attention. Geoff
  19. Jas looking at your spec it's pretty high end compared with many here. Your experience may say something about the few FTX fields that have caused problems but the reality is that if lesser machines don't cope, and a good number of folk have reported poor performance on a few, they aren't going to work for everyone. Of course as folk undate or upgrade their machines these fields may have greater performance them, but it's rather misleading to say they all work well. You can only say they all work on your spec machine? I have to add that coming from Train Simming there was always a grumble when developers "pushed the envelope" with add-ons and I certainly bought a few that stuttered along at single figure frame rates BUT when I upgraded my machine and they ran properly I was pleased that the added detail worked. It is useful to know that you have no issues with that spec though. Geoff
  20. If fan bois is considered unacceptable in the forum now? :rolleyes: can it please be replaced with "less than critical user" :huh: rather than the somewhat silly "over excited user"? :wacko: I for one never get overexcited, stunned or awstruck with this hobby. It keeps me entertained as a hobby and the previous posts show that some posts by "less than critical users" ^_^ have mislead many of a more sober, sensible and moderate disposition? If the bot that does this can't be reconfigured maybe there should be a bot edit glossary? :lol: Geoff
  21. Guess I'd be guilty as charged there too :lol: Mind you finding reviews before you buy and assessing the criticism in each review ain't exactly rocket science nor time consuming. I did buy one C172 which everyone raved about the flight model on but for me the eye candy was poor even by FS9 standards and the repaints included underwhelming too. Just uninstalled it. Bought a few that were allegedly "Completey Updated from the FS9 model" and wondered exactly which pixel had actually been updated :angry: ? By and large I've quickly narrowed my purchases to low and slow with nothing bigger than a DC3 and find that I still fly just a handful depending on where and how long a flight. I think that this thread is useful even if they are unqualified opinions because very often some reviews are not critical enough and a bad experience repeatedly posted by different folk should at least prompt further research before deciding to buy. I'm afraid I just don't get the "don't be negative" mantra. Before Ralph Nader started the crusade for consumer rights all manner of sub standard rubbish in every aspect of consumerism was being unloaded on an unsuspecting public. Now there's hardly a country on the planet that doesn't have some sort of consumer protection and the internet has given consumers the ability to post reviews of any purchase. FS add-ons are just another purchase. If it's good there'll be no "negativity" anyway? Geoff Think it's worth stating I didn't add publishers names above because few producers of ANY commodity make all great products and few make ALL bad ones either.
  22. Why post where constructive criticism is ignored at best and deleted at worst? Whilst this section is open at AVSim sensible discussion can be held about the product and the usual support that makes simming a good hobby can be exchanged between fellow simmers without fear of deletion. Frankly the forum at FTX is so restricted and moderated I don't know why they don't just keep a product announcement thread and the support thread. If you don't want peoples opinions why run a forum? The real problem is that the issues raised over the forum detract from the work of the individual creators and devlopers for the titles and when they do post on a forum their help is usually like a breath of fresh air. In short less feedback from the publisher and more from the developer would be a huge help. Whilst I'm on that subject a better credit listing of who did what on each title would be great too? There's an old engineering saying "Speak to the mechanic, not the oily rag" :lol: geoff
  23. Did you actually READ any of the posts above? Why wouldn't folk expect the product to work out of the box? What ELSE do you buy that you don't expect to work out of the box? Software should be tested before release and such obvious failings fixed prior to release. Are you an official spokesperson for ORBX? If not ask yourself why we've had no feedback from the devs about suggestions made here and by PM? Even an acknowledgment would have been polite. Something along the lines of : “Thanks for your feedback. We’re looking into all feedback at the present time and will post a response on the forums when we’ve looked at the issues raised”. Almost standard practice from ANY customer service department? I'll say it again for those who didn't bother reading my first post OR several other folks posts above . Most of us on this forum have bought a great deal of what FTX have produced. We actually KNOW what it is that they produce. We don't need it explained to us that we can't see a photoreal environment. Many people posting either HAVE the photoreal scenery or have NOT purchased it because of it's well publicised lack of believability and detail at lower levels. Those who have identified areas that need improvement are posting them because they want to see improvements NOT to criticise the postings of those who like what they’ve got. If they like what they’ve got they’ll surely like the improvements even more? I have to say that after further flying around I can see why the airliner users might be less critical than us Low and Slow pilots ...BUT I would point out that the whole point of FTX has been to improve things for VFR, GA, Bush pilots and the detailed airfields produced by different developers in different countries have, since the Oz regions, been almost all GA or small regional fields. It was even posted in the ORBX forums that they would not be developing more Airports because they were too time consuming. I stand corrected if that’s been changed. I’d like to be clear that I expect the team to work on a patch and expect them to fix a good deal of the stuff raised but not responding to constructive criticism and even banning people from the forums for raising it is frankly a bizarre and ridiculous response. When I buy FTX products I buy the work of the developer/development team. I buy that which appeals to me and my interest in the hobby. As it stands at the present I feel isolated from any constructive direct dialogue with those developers and that IMO is the weakest link. Geoff
  24. My only concern is that all that beautiful detail will make it a frame rate killer? Anacortes got some bad feedback for that (unless this was patched?) as did some of the Oz Airports (not sure exactly which now) so if the frame rates are OK it's extended coverage and the detail shown in the shots make it one for my list. Geoff
  25. but not always as quickly as is needed B) . I'll just get back on the "Awsome" stool". :LMAO:
×
×
  • Create New...