timholyoake

GOSH ! WHERE DO YOU START ! Well as everyone has said , it is pretty much down to what you want and what you like. It is nice to see that MS Default and Just Flight are noticable by their lack of presence. Personally I don't "DO" heavy jets, so can't comment. My personal list would be ... A2A B337 + the addons, PMDG BAe Jetstream 41 Aerosoft Catalina and pretty much anything from the Carenado HD range, (C208b or C210T being my favorites) but you will have your own, For easy hops and just plane cute the Aerosoft DHC2 beaver takes some beating.. just depends what mood youre in at the time BUT would seriously love to see some good quality classic "Brit Props" York, Hermes, Vanguard, if any developers are reading this.

Whatever and whenever, You know for sure that it MUST be commercialy viable (So the rumours are wrong). It will be fantastic, Ground breaking, Unbelievable... And not to everyones taste...

Then Martyn, we must agree to differ.

I'm sorry Nortmar, But if you build a new item, then I feel that when people part with there hard earned money , they should get the best that you can deliver, Sending out a product that uses other peoples work (Old Gauges) reverting to the standard default 2d cockpit, and having to issue an update to the sound package , sitting in a cockpit which gives the impression of being in a streamlined fighter jet (are those front screens at about 45 degrees?) is not my idea of a professional package. Charging people their hard earned cash for a substandard product is a rip off. you are right, I AM entitled to my opinion, as a cash paying customer , that was it. If you find this offensive then maybe you should either not be in commerce (Because people do make judgements on what they buy. Or maybe have a look at what Carenado deliver , and try to emulate their "out of the box" quality.I have been delivering commercial packages to customers as a self employed business man for many years now, and on occaision I have failed to reach the standards expected of me. when a customer has pointed this out to me, I have apologised and attempted to find a way to rectify this. telling the customer that his opinion is rude and offensive is not a tack I have taken ....

The problem you are face with Bill. Is that you took a much loved Icon , and with it produced a much loved Icon. Flyers have been screaming for an update to a classic (DC 3 family) for 50 years or more. Flight simmers have been doing it to you for about 8....We know you have problems, we appreciate what you have done.... BUT WE ARE STILL VERY DESPERATE.........are we nearly there yet?

Gosh you just said a mouthful. Remember FSX (I still shudder).and to Mr Happy (Tierborn) Apart from a little friendly advice in the direction of , lighten up a little and have a giggle. I would say that while a lot of people on this forum, may not understand marketing, It is my personal opinion that Microsoft are no great shakes at it either.they had a good, although ageing , product in FS9, 2004. So rather than leave it in place while the successor was honed to a point where it was the next step in evolution, They rushed out a product that was slow and clunky. memory hungry to a point that most computers available at the time could not handle it, used a direct X version that was not completed at the time and was only a "Preview" when many other games released at the time were using it on publication. Did not support multiple graphics cards. unlike a lot of the games that were its contemporaries. or multi core processors, which at the time were in the minority , but definately the way things were going.... and was in competition with it's own predecessor (FS9/2004) for 2 years or so.....Need I go on.....OK, it is now a very good flight sim. But wouldn't it have been nice to wait a year or 18 months or so, to the time when FS9 / 2004 was being left behind by computers advances, and THEN market FS X, after a bit more testing....Definately , give me a product that works well out of the box. you would think that Oct/Nov would be the time for release of a product like this, in time for the Christmas market. But don't hold your breath.

OK. So Just Flight have released a new Viscount onto the sceen.One of my major complaints about FS X is the almost total lack of "Brit Props" (My era ) 2009 had some wonderful Yorks, Argosys, DC 3 (We adopted it), VC 8, 9 and 10 (Honoury Prop) etc. So without any hesitation I bought the DC3 that they released. It was AWFUL... cartoony, sound of cessna, and default dash etc etc etc... The MAAMSIM version was many times better and 10 years older..... I REALLY wanted the DH 106 comet, but awaited the reviews having been bitten before. The reviews were not good. So I stuck with Dave Maltby's Comet which was for FS9, 4 years older FREE, and 10 times better. My question therefore is... Is the just flight Viscount better than Rick Piper's excellent old and FREE Viscount , or are the rip off artists at Just flight trying to cream us again.... P.S. Could somebody out there do a top whack VC 9 or a York specifically for FS X. ? ... PLEASE

I am looking for some really good Alaskan scenery> any tips anyone???

"Why do people use that adjective, 'cartoony', its vacuous, well other thanconnoting something cheesy and cheap i suppose. I haven't bought this yetbut from the cockpit pictures I've looked at I see nothing that reminds meof a cartoon :( "for someone who hasn't got it yet just assuming that someone is vacuous purely because they use a phrase (That is VERY accurate) ... well... get it then see.Outside this is a great model (Straight from the paint shop without a spec of dust). the sound is the worst that I have ever heard anywhere,the update is not too good either. The flight deck looks like a guess as to what it might be like, and the instruments are .... Cartoony. I have the MAAM-SIM model and inspite of being 10 years older (Designed for FS2002 and slow machines , therefore a bit angular close up). it still kicks this into touch' it is still my favorite FS DC3, BUT, desperately needs updating to take advantage of FSX. you cannot balance the prop and power settings and to be honest it is a total waste of oportunity, and money.. Just my opinion but the MAAM-SIM version is much more flyable... unless you just want a "Yank and Bank" and then there are much cheaper (Freeware) versions that do it all better....

There is no doubt in my mind that the Dakota and its derivatives are some of the most popular aircraft ever to fly. And this is equally true of the flight sim versions, as can be seen by the HUMUNGOUS amount of them that are available. I don't want to denigrate anyones efforts, as most of them are extreemly good aircraft, but the MAAM_SIM effort is as much a classic as was the douglas version. And as already stated the updates from the original were well appreciated. The BIG fly in the ointment is the fact that there is NOT an FSX native version (applies to the B25 as well. In the past it was a valid argument that there was a "Port across" and that FSX was new also that most flight simmers were happy with FS9/2004/acof, That ,however is no longer the case and FSX is as mainstream as FS9. The textures could be updated as with many other things , and we will be very happy to recieve any crumbs that you guys can throw us. mBUT the BIG thing is the virtual cockpit, which is dated and blocky and only selected items work. This is a major problem with the program and urgently requires rectification. I know it is a big job and that you have many other things keeping you busy. But the MAAM-Sim Dak has gone from being almost the only aircraft I used to sim fly to not having been used at all for over a year.I (and I am sure others too) would happily pay for a full upgrade (Especially seeing where that money goes and the fine work it helps towards), So how about it fellas , it's been years now and we are still waiting to get our favorite aircraft into the 21st century.