nessis

When you said the review was great, you weren't kidding. That review ticks all the boxes for what I'd like to see anytime I read a review.

Sounds like you're projecting a little bit, I've got a law degree so I have a pretty thorough understanding of the 1st amendment so you don't have to worry about me going down that road. I just think you'd do well to try to get your blood pressure down a bit, if developers are doing the quality work you seem to think they are I doubt a few people blowing off steam on the internet is going to be that big a deal.

Some of you here think that because you have a certain opinion people shouldn't be allowed to declare a different one, right?

Is there any particular model amongst their business jets that is noted for playing nicely with windows 8? I know they don't offer any support and it has put me off buying one, but if there is one that is generally known to work well for most people most of the time I might be willing to take that chance.

I don't see why everyone is fooled into thinking these flysimware aircraft have superior systems depth. You can't initiate a failure by exceeding the operating parameters of the engine (unless something has changed from the C441) and there are no random failures - things you can get from A2A and RealAir respectively at a a similar price point in addition to really nice graphics. Putting engine locks on an aircraft and making it take a bit longer to start does not make it a SUPER REALISTIC DEEP AIRCRAFT GAIYSSS!!! The good includes really nice sounds, a nice FDE, and F1 GTN 750 integration that is well done at doesn't cost any extra. I'd save your money for the MU-2 from MilViz. After you pay for avionics integration package it will be the same price and although the sound might not be as nice as flysimware the FDE will be every bit as good or better and you'll get something that looks like an FSX addon aircraft developed in the current era rather than one drawn in MSpaint. That nighlighting in the c441...give me a break. I hate to come out and be so harsh on someone's work, as I said there are good points. But the people that are going to pony up $41.00 US on this thing deserve to hear the other side of the story as told by someone who isn't a busy stroking themselves off over being able to like an ugly airplane. Save your money and get a turbine duke v2.

Flysimware Cessna 402 and Cessna 441.

Hey flying_bob, sorry to bug you but I sent you a PM as well. Thanks for your time and efforts!

I bought their C402 and was completely underwhelmed with it at the price point (~US$30). I flew it for about 10 hours. The textures were equivalent to high end freeware and, while I've never been in a C402, the flight model, sounds, and systems modelling (what little there was) didn't seem to have a whole lot of personality. Basically it was a Just Flight Flying Club Duchess B76 with less personality and charm and priced 1.5x higher. I would welcome someone convincing me that I'm being too harsh though, so I don't feel like I wasted my cash - so please fire away if you've got something good to say about it. I notice the C441 is yet another peg up the price ladder. Have they raised their game any on this one? Is it intended to be a cut above the C402? I'd love for it to be great as I hear they are doing an MU-2 as well, and like the c442 and c402 that is right in the wheel house of the type of aircraft I like. Edit: Forgot to mention, on the plus side of the C402, F1 GTN 750 integration was flawless from the start.

Yup, love to stroke myself over a terrible landing after 5 hours of watching the terrain scroll by! :wub:

Thanks for the rundown, sounds like I may have been experiencing a bit of a placebo effect with the changed settings then. Luckily I ordered a boxed copy recently and have it sitting on my desk. Now to figure out the best way to get my scenery and addons onto a new installation

Does anyone have any idea what graphics settings are most closely linked to the terrain.dll crashes? Is mesh more important than autogen? I was getting the terrain dll crash after around ~2.5 hrs of flights. I switched my scenery complexity to the middle notch (was full right) and autogen density to one notch left of middle (was one notch left of full right) and this seems to have eliminated them. I did notice that I have my mesh complexity and resolution set much higher than Mr. Dowson's (due to some instructions for Orbx payware airports) and I was wondering if I adjusted my settings in those fields to be similar if I could put my scenery complexity and autogen back to where they were and still avoid the crashes while having less of a visual impact on my scenery?

Well Steffen, if you've set out to part us from our money then I have to report that you have been successful, at least in my case. I hadn't heard of Ant's before, but once I get home from work today I'm going to try the A demo. If it flies as good as it looks then no doubt I will be $20.00 poorer by tomorrow.

Hi, I'm trying my best here (scanned the thread, searched this forum and j4100 forum, etc.) but I haven't seen any additional news about the compatibility update for the JS4100 that is mentioned in the first post. Has the update been published? Thank You, Fred Kaiser

Just wanted to report in since I had a chance to sit and experiment tonight. 1) I can confirm that disabling vector restored the land to MYXY (Duncan Town)...very nice and large low lying island surrounding the strip now. 2) Disabling also (as expected) fixes the problems with MKNG (Negril). The AEC fix (with vector active) with MKNG gave me a usable ramp area that was visible from the sky and a small part of the runway, but the vast majority was still "underground". 3) Also fixes a problem I was having with PX02 where the runway and the airport texture weren't even in the same place. There is also a gentleman who was having the same problem with the vector layer erasing an island off of Scotland, he's posted in this thread on the official forums: http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/92036-lost-one-island/#entry837285 I have to say, although vector has a great coverage area for the price and for the most part looks pretty good, the errors mentioned above are just a few of the significant ones I've encountered while doing FSeconomy missions in the Caribbean and S. America. Showing up to a nonexistent island or airstrip is a worse immersion breaker for me than having a highway/river in the wrong place or missing. Given the number of errors I've seen so far and the only recourse being to ask Pilots/OrbX to fix them in a future patch, I'm considering either getting UTX or foregoing a vector layer entirely. Maybe if anyone has or know's someone with UTX Central America and Islands they could ask them to check those locations and see how they look?

Thanks to everyone who's contributed, I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something boneheaded before I ran off to the support forums to report the problem. Thanks for the tip of vector Slayer, I have run the autoconfig and applied it but haven't tried to add anything manually. I noticed that MKNG (Negril) is not listed in either the include or exclude list on my installation last night [not in front of my FS machine right now] does it work properly for any airport if I just type in the ICAO code and move it to one side or the other?