Coneman

Fun??? I thought this was all serious stuff?

I'm not sure I'm going to install any cargo flightplans yet, since I don't think most airports, except for maybe a few payware, are set up for cargo spaces. You might have cargo aircraft populating your passenger stands.

I've been an AIG user for years now, and yes, there is a bit of some user setup involved, but for those that pride themselves devouring systems manuals it shouldn't be all that daunting. As far as waiting for Asobo to resolve bugs....well...a bird in hand.....also kudos to Kai and the crew for getting this out to us to enjoy, for free no less. Amazing the amount of work that goes into this stuff, and it will only get better as Asobo solves some AI issues.

He already has for the Sea Hawk. I believe they're at fs.to as well.

He just released his native F2H Banshee as well. Wonderful stuff and very generous.

Ryan, not a big fan of the Mooney, but those repaints may push me over the edge to buy it. Well done. Todd

I've been in the visual arts for a long time, and as a result am a keen of observer of atmospherics. Killthespam, your second pic actually is more realistic looking and looks similar to MSFS as well. The first looks quite dated and from a legacy sim. Of course atmospheric haze can vary quite a bit but there is usually always some scattering at altitude. Just another opinion. 🙂

I've got a couple of examples and then I'm done. These are two wonderful Kodachrome photos from the Curtiss factory at the time, part of a great series that is easily found on the web. I rely on period photos if at all possible instead of someone's artwork since all sorts of variations can creep in. Both photos show AN Dark Olive Drab 41 over AN Neutral Gray 43, which was AAF Spec at the time of Pearl Harbor. As you can see, the value (lightness or darkness of a color) of the two aren't too far apart. You can also see the size of the red circle within the insignia. Another thing to note is the length of the landing gear and the very prominent armored glass in the cockpit. It looks quite empty without it. As mentioned previously, there are many other issues with other schemes. For those that don't care about the markings or accuracy, I get it. There are many warbird owners who don't either, and that's their prerogative. However, as a paying customer, some of us look at the whole package and see what kind of care and research went into it. The markings are a clear indicator and something easily researched. I would hope that those that just care about how it flies would respect that, much as I respect their focus. I care how it flies too, it's just not my only concern. It's a total package. However any dev should be open to constructive criticism from potential customers, which sadly doesn't seem to be the case here. If there are hurt feelings, I'm not sorry, it's not about feelings, it's about helping to improve a product that has even more potential. Take care

I'm really not interested in a freebie, but I appreciate the offer. My only motivation is to point out some ways to improve the product. As has been mentioned, you don't really need the airplane to see the issues with the camo and markings and some important things that are missing. And I fully realize how long this stuff takes to put together. But if this is a side job, why the push to get it out before it's polished? I think you could pick up even more business with a little extra time to make it right. I'll send you a PM with a few suggestions if you like.

With all the resources available on the web, there really isn't any excuse for not taking about 30 minutes to research a paint scheme, if you don't have your own resources. And taking 3 months? If it really does take you that long I can see why shortcuts are taken. It can be done in a day. And I'm not rivet counting here by any means. These are basic things that should be right when charging for a product. There are devs who really do take the time to make sure everything is as accurate as possible. I really don't want to be discouraging, I think you have a nice product that could be great. But I think these basic things need to be pointed out, and as a new dev, I'm sure you appreciate constructive criticism as well as the adulation. Thanks for listening.

I was pretty intent on getting this one, but the paint schemes/insignia are poorly done/researched. I don't think it's too much to ask for some diligence to make sure they are correct in a payware product. It makes me wonder what other shortcuts were taken. Also I don't see the armored glass or ring and bead sights which would be very apparent in the vc.

For those that like this genre, and are a little more adventurous, I always liked Craig Richardsons work. His later stuff seems more like payware, and it will port, with a little work, just fine into MSFS. The Dart Kitten is an example, and just needed some help with the glass. The Camel is exceptional too. But they have to be FSX native.

This is really good news. The sim needs some warbirds, and yours looks great. Any shots of the vc? Will a paint kit be available? And I applaud you on the jump in and fly version. Just a minor critique, the static prop blades look a bit odd. And do you know what causes the blurry spinner? I have several that do that. As your name suggests, I hope you do the bubbletop P-47D.

This maybe the same thing, but visibility seems to be stuck at about 20 miles with EA on after the update. I installed client and content. After seeing this issue I installed scenery as well but it still persists.

I got this when our internet went out from damaging high winds. Hitting continue did nothing. I thought we could fly offline???