Tom_G_2010

Ditto, same here!

I hope he responds to this post and not to one individual as more than a few of us have this concern and it may impact our purchase decision. I would also like to repeat my other question in hopes of an answer: How do users of alternate payment methods handle this, or does Majestic ( or its distributors) not accept paypal or other none credit card forms of payment?

Given the amount of credit card fraud that is happening and the fact the many vendor's "totally secure" sites have been hacked, the less often a credit card number is entered into a pc for any reason the better. I would really like to see Majestic find some other less risky way of validation. While it may be "safe" and "work well" for them it's not their credit card number that is exposed to fraud... How do users of alternate payment methods handle this, or do they not accept paypal or other none credit card forms of payment?

There are several ways they could verify you're the license holder of the purchased software at install time. There's no reason at all to ask for Credit Card info during install if you have already paid for it through a secure vendors online system. That's a show stopper right there! And, as for firewall issues, it is very concerning that an add on is reaching out if you are not in a multi-player situation. Why would it be doing that???? I hope Crosswind can jump back in and respond regarding these issues. I really hope this is not the case for the upcoming 400 release. I have that on my purchase list, but absent some further explanation that may no longer be the case...

If you look close at my avatar it is my original flight sim setup using my Commodore 64 running Sub Logic's Flight Sim Version 2 back in the early to mid 80's before MS got the rights to develop a DOS version of it. IMHO the C64 and Sub Logic Flight Sim V2 actually did a better job than MS's DOS version of Flight Sim, even though the DOS version was more feature rich. But for either it was still only crayon grade drawings and a buzz sound for the engine. Laughable by today's standards. Cool thing is I still have a working C64 and a copy of the software in storage. If age and environment haven't killed either I may fire them up again as a novelty after I get my sim pit build done.

The textures are a bit lame, but sure can. And, the frame rate is great! This is a plane -o- This is a runway ========== This is an airport beacon >< And, this is terrain __/\__|__/\__ :blink:

I have a control gate on my add on spending. I'm building a cockpit and like most have limited funds to accomplish a fairly expensive project. So, while I still do buy add ons I have to keep in mind that any money that goes towards them in any month takes away from my cockpit build budget. Most of the add ons I buy I consider to be under evaluation using my desktop desktop pit so I know what will ultimately get loaded on the future pc I'll purchase for the full sim pit. I have to admit though that, like you there are a number of add on aircraft collecting dust in the hanger, I fly the latest purchase for a while and then move on. There are however one or two that I have just kept flying no matter what else I buy.

Slightly off topic, but related, does anyone know if the winds aloft bug has been dealt with in P3D? PS, after testing Opus this past weekend, it is now on my buy list waiting for my next paycheck. Great Software!!!!

Miggs, HOw much of the improvement do you think is purely the result of a fresh OS install and how much is the result of that OS install being Win 8? THe last time I did a ground up reload of my FSX pc the improvement was shocking, even staying with the same (Win7 64bit) OS. I am hoping in a few months to buy a new pc for my sim so the Win 8 issue is a real attention getter right now.

As compared to a real 172 the stock FSX 172 is way off the mark! The payware add on 172s that I have (Flight One and Carenado) come much closer but still have short comings. I welcome another vendors shot at it, in particular one with a reputation like A2A's. As for a waste of skill and resource, not if they produce a more faithful copy of the original. If the word hits the street that it's a step up in fidelity and people purchase it for that reason it could net them a good ROI against their development dollars. Meeting a consumer need/desire and making money doing it is hardly a waste, it's good business.

I'm giving LINDA a test drive for the first time. On thing I am trying to accomplish is to track down the LVars that are being read or written when certain add on aircraft custom code is running. In the specific case I am investigating at the moment I am trying to see the LVars being read and written when I press the Master Caution or Master Warning reset switches on my Carenado King Air C90. I activated the LINDA Console and in the Console options checked everything. I then went to the aircraft cockpit and clicked those buttons. They performed as expected in FSX but the LINDA Console saw noting??? Other functions that are native to FSX like lights or fuel pump are captured in the log, but Carenado custom functions like those mentioned above and others are not. Shouldn't the log be seeing something for these? OR, do I need to go back to the native FSUIPC and lua logging to capture LVars?

Swweeeeeettttt!!!!!! :Applause: My vote would be for a 1977 172N with original steam gauges and a fully upgraded avionics stack. :Praying: I wonder if sending them a picture of my sim pit project would be enough of a hint

Well, I snuck in a quick flight during lunch. My initial reaction is Blahhh Water Masking? Uhhmm, NO! But maybe it's a setting in my scenery complexity. I'll have time to check that this evening. Download and install an area with a single install? Well, NO not that either! The tiny state of RI took 4 files! (3.36Gigg total) I flew out of KPVD first with default scenery. Even with my scenery settings rather sparse the modest amount of Autogen around the outside of the airport grounds gave the landscape definition. Of course after a climbed a bit I was faced with the stock FSX scenery which is nothing to write home about for sure. My second flight was with the new MegaScenery II RI. Sitting on the runway and looking out past the airfield it felt like I was at a field out on the plains of the midwest, flat and devoid of dimensional character other than the airport buildings in close. When I took off I was hoping to see something more impressive than the original MegaScenery in terms of quality. And, it was a bit better, but not enough to make up for the featureless terrain caused by the lack of Autogen. I'm a low and slow GA guy so that counts for a lot. Again this was just a 10 minute flight while I ate lunch, I'll do some more this evening, but my first impression was not a great one.

UPDATE: THey where quick to reply to my email that the link was broken. I received the reply about 6 hours after i sent the message. They apologized and said the link was now fixed and I should try again. The download now runs, by ironically the download is happening on a screen that is still giving me a "File Not Found" error message :rolleyes: So, I'm downloading the RI files now and will install them at lunch time or this evening.

24hr turn around on a customer inquiry is reasonable. Knowing about a problem since last Saturday and not alerting customers before they hand you money is NOT reasonable ! If I wanted to hand a vendor my money and wait for a product I would order the DVD via snail mail. But when you pay for something with "Instant Download" as the delivery option you kind of expect, well, "Instant Download" If they have a known problem it would be reasonable for them to put a notice up that warns buyers that delays may occur while they work to resolve such issues.

They just released Rhode Island Megascenery II for only $9.95. I decided for that price I would try out the new scenery and see what I thought of it. I was hoping to do some flying this evening and post my opinion. Well, That Aint Gonna Happen! Not tonight anyway. After the site took my money it provided me a broken link to the download file... :mad: I've sent them a request to resolve it, but this is sure not a great intro to the new and improved downgraded scenery :excl:

I've got the demo downloaded and ran it last night. I was looking at the weather gen, First impression: Very Impressive!!! I haven't had a chance to play around with what it does for TrackIR yet or the Camera views. But, to be honest, the camera stuff is an entirely new space for me to play in. I've always just lived with the views that FSX offered and whatever the add ons gave me. So, the concept of having control over that or even how best to take advantage of it escapes me. I'll be looking at the camera documentation this evening to see if I can figure it out. Any chance someone has created a YouTube overview or tutorial on this functionality? One unwanted side affect that is happening though is how Opus has altered my default views on load. I have a two monitor arrangement. The top monitor is for an out the window view using an undocked VC in order to allow for trackIR look around out the windows. The 3D cockpit acts as a mask blocking what i would not be able to see outside in the real aircraft. My second monitor, below that, typically has the docked stock instrument panel view. My standard setup for each aircraft is saved with this arrangement. However when I load an aircraft with Opus running it kills the bottom monitors view. The top monitor shows the VC as it always has, but the bottom monitor shows no view at all. And, when I start to use the menus to open a new view whatever drop down I select paints on the screen and then leaves a ghost image (actually a rather fully opaque ghost image) there after the drop down is closed. When I am able to open a new view I can size it over the entire screen and it paints over the images of the drop downs but until then it's hard to tell what images are ghosts and which are the real drop down menus. Any ideas on the cause or how to resolve this??? Not sure it's a deal killer on the purchase yet, but it sure does detract from the the overall value and the impressive weather gen. Thanks! Tom G. PS, One other observation, circling back to my earlier pre eval feedback, Now that I am using the demo to make a purchase decision I really hope you do increase that 10 minute demo time. Even if only to 20 min. it would allow for a better initial introduction to what Opus has to offer. Just as I finish looking at one feature or function, and start to test out another, the demo stops and I need to wait to restart it again.

Check out a set of books from http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/ . Also check out http://www.mycockpit.org a site decicated to cockpit building. You'll find an overwhelming amount of infor there and user support. There are other sources but those two should get you a good start in the information gathering and design phase.

I also received the e-mail. Someone please tell me we are all misunderstanding this announcement! Are they actually suggesting that sat photos laid over terrain mesh with no 3D objects is somehow an improvement??? I thought I was misunderstanding that but now you all have me wondering... I had to do some trouble shooting on FSX that lead to my temporarily disabling the Megascenery that I already have. As a low and slow GA guy flying mostly VFR I am so looking forward to turning it back on. And was hoping tp budget for more of it in the future. But, if that's the direction they are taking I won't be...

I don't feel my comments were particularly harsh or holding them to some impossible standard. They have in a way set that bar by producing a long line of exceptional aircraft in the past. Many have come to expect much from them based on that. And, they have in the past, and I suspect will continue to produce Service Packs for their aircraft taking into account user inputs. However, the King Airs seem to be a bit buggier than many other releases and a bit less faithful to the real aircraft. My ask is that they take comments like those of the OP into account when doing such Service Pack development. Some of the items he mentions would take only minimal tweaks or coding to implement in a SP release. For those that exceed a reasonable amount of development time it's understandable that they not fit in an SP. But, those should be considered lessons learned and base lines for the next aircraft they develop.

+1 Agreed. The market has established a level of expectation related to cost verses realism. And, while Carenado makes some exceptional looking aircraft, their venture into the slightly more complex with the King Airs has not met that cost to realism standard as I perceive it either. If Carenado chooses to listen to the users it can learn a great deal for these King Air launches and would be able to bring themselves on par with the likes of PMDG. That would be fantastic since we would then have a broad spectrum of very realistic aircraft to select from.

OH... wait, maybe it's a misunderstanding on my part :unsure: Is the time limit on the demo a per use time limit so that one could go for a 10 minute flight then close and reopen FSX and do another 10 minutes? If that's the case then I could see where 15 to 30 minute increments would be more than enough. Don't I feel silly... :blush: .

I guess other people must have more money than I (or the folks I fly with on line) for flight sim purchases. On other forums I frequent they often debate investing in add ons that are more than $35 without thorough peer review and evaluation to ensure they are getting a good bang for the buck. $45 does sound like a lot to many people in this rotten economy. I'm happy for those for whom it only seems like a small amount, they are fortunate. But for many that's not the case and we are careful with how we spend our limited flight sim budgets. I don't understand your concern that people might take it for a 100 mile joy ride and abandon it. If it fails to impress them that might happen, But, if it is as impressive as the folks here have indicated (and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this point) and clearly shows it is worth the $45 investment then the demo has done its job. As for convincing one's self to go for the 30 day trial, that's still handing hard earned cash to someone else until you determine your level of satisfaction. Don't get me wrong, the possibility of a refund is a good safety net, but still requires parting with cash up front. If the demo ran for 60 minutes and allowed the 100 miles it would give a reasonable time to sample the quality and make a purchase decision and you would lose nothing for having allowed it, but might gain a greater number of sales. No need to reply and disagree or agree with me. As I said, just one humble business mans opinion. I'm looking forward to giving Opus a test drive.

Thanks for all the replies, I think I'll be checking out Opus the next time I fly! The only pre test drive critique I have is with regard to the 10 minute demo. These days $45 is hard earned cash to part with and having a bit more time to see the value of Opus in action would likely lead to higher sales. It wouldn't hurt to crank that up to 30 or 60 minutes. 10 minutes is hardly enough time to get up in the air and look around. Just one humble business mans opinion. I'll be sure to post a follow up here.

So there must be an option in Opus to choose between the "Track Clip" and "Track Clip Pro", yes? I have to make that selection in the existing TrackIR software so I would think with that software not running I would need to input that setting in Opus.