Area51sim - c-5m galaxy out now [Archive]

IanP

October 27th, 2009, 15:54

This discussion is going to eventually come down to "if it's worth it to you for that aircraft then get it, if it isn't, don't. No-one is forcing you to." so I might as well say it before I go to bed.

It does look like a nice model, I'll admit. Although I suspect strongly that there are very few systems there, the gauges don't look entirely default, either - although the functionality behind them may well be. Case in point is the CDU I mentioned earlier that shows autopilot modes and settings. That must be a new gauge, albeit showing information that is almost certainly from the default functions available through the SDK without custom coding.

Cag40Navy

October 27th, 2009, 16:00

someone needs to buy it, them provide screenshots of the VC and aircraft

djscoo

October 27th, 2009, 16:27

someone needs to buy it, them provide screenshots of the VC and aircraft
You first! :D

Gdavis101

October 27th, 2009, 17:44

I think I am going to want this one.. Have to reinstall FSX first though, making the transition to Windows 7.

tigisfat

October 27th, 2009, 18:41

I'm not going to be the guinea pig for a 43 dollar 11 meg product. It doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of cool development in this one. It might just be a straight forward product. I do really want it though.

There have been plenty of products I've wanted really bad that I haven't bought because they weren't worth it.

Lionheart

October 27th, 2009, 18:42

I Just bought it and must say the pics don't do it justice. I love this plane. They say they are doing a C-17 too so now I can't wait for that.

J.J. (Gator)

Read above.. JJ bought it and says its great.

:ernae:

Gatorlph11

October 27th, 2009, 21:38

Gents, I personally feel it is well worth the money. I took some pics with the aircraft sitting at AS's Dover AFB next to the C5 AI. If you love the C5, I don't think you will be disappointed. Here are the pics.

J.J. (Gator)

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_001435.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_001640.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_002029.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_003848.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_004008.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_004148.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_004244.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_004339.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_004930.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_005132.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_005241.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_005330.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_005518.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_001352.png

Gatorlph11

October 27th, 2009, 21:45

Just realized that Photobucket shrunk the max image size. Sorry, they are small and don't show the detail as well.

J.J. (Gator)

bushpilot

October 27th, 2009, 21:46

Gents, I personally feel it is well worth the money.

So does it have programmable FMC?

bushpilot

October 27th, 2009, 21:48

Just realized that Photobucket shrunk the max image size. Sorry, they are small and don't show the detail as well.

J.J. (Gator)

I upload my pics to photobucket in jpg format and it keeps the size. Maybe photobucket does not like PNGs..?

Gatorlph11

October 28th, 2009, 01:36

So does it have programmable FMC?

I never mess with the FMC so I really can't give an accurate answer. I don't believe it does because the only thing that is there is Autopilot. Here is a pic. Thanks for the JPEG info.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/Gatorlph11/2009-10-28_051528.png

Quixoticish

October 28th, 2009, 04:17

Does it come with a repaint kit? If so it's a definite purchase.

jim

October 28th, 2009, 06:19

I have it. All I can say is "BEWARE"; it is not what it seems. I am "disappointed". That is all.:stop:

bstolle

October 28th, 2009, 06:29

Disappointed about what if I may ask......

Regards

Bernt

Txmmy83

October 28th, 2009, 08:53

model looks like it have the same superb quality than their Cobra Heli it is on my list but not for this month :)

BR
Tom

simkid22

October 28th, 2009, 13:46

Gator, how is the model shine? I have their cobra and the model shine makes the matte textures look like its been varnished. From the screen shots, it's hard to tell if the C-5 is truly matte.

Gatorlph11

October 28th, 2009, 16:43

Gator, how is the model shine? I have their cobra and the model shine makes the matte textures look like its been varnished. From the screen shots, it's hard to tell if the C-5 is truly matte.

There is a shine to it. Sometimes it is more pronounce than other times. It only comes in one livery. On there website a gentleman said that in the next couple of days there will be a patch and a down loadable paint kit. I must say It made me happy to read happy re painter under your simkid22 name. It would be great to see a Dover paint for this monster.

:ernae:
J.J.

Cag40Navy

October 29th, 2009, 06:54

the aircraft will be on there site soon and will only be $30 which is not a bad price i think.

EDIT: on there forums, there going to work on a few more things and then get the FMC to work.

Lionheart

October 29th, 2009, 09:29

I was able to see some of these huge airships doing pattern landings in California once. Awesome to see. They are so huge that they look like they are floating, like blimps.

Cool to see..

Bill

Kiwikat

October 29th, 2009, 10:35

EDIT: on there forums, there going to work on a few more things and then get the FMC to work.

Getting the FMC "to work" (like it is supposed to) isn't a simple quick fix like they make it sound. And just having a FMC doesn't make the plane realistic either. What about all the other systems in a plane that modern and complex? If they were planning to add all that stuff, why didn't they wait to release it? (rhetorical question- I know why they didn't wait.)

I'm really growing tired of developers not releasing FINISHED products... :blind:

centuryseries

October 29th, 2009, 10:38

the aircraft will be on there site soon and will only be $30 which is not a bad price i think.

Not bad if you haven't already bought it at simmarket for $44!

Just as well I haven't! :isadizzy:

Cag40Navy

October 29th, 2009, 11:10

Getting the FMC "to work" (like it is supposed to) isn't a simple quick fix like they make it sound. And just having a FMC doesn't make the plane realistic either. What about all the other systems in a plane that modern and complex? If they were planning to add all that stuff, why didn't they wait to release it? (rhetorical question- I know why they didn't wait.)

I'm really growing tired of developers not releasing FINISHED products... :blind:

yea, i know, but i just thought i might let people know.

i agree, i wish companys would finish there products before release.

JohnC

October 29th, 2009, 12:05

"Getting the FMC "to work" (like it is supposed to) isn't a simple quick fix like they make it sound. And just having a FMC doesn't make the plane realistic either. What about all the other systems in a plane that modern and complex? If they were planning to add all that stuff, why didn't they wait to release it? (rhetorical question- I know why they didn't wait.)

I'm really growing tired of developers not releasing FINISHED products... "

There's a standard set of rules when progressing through the design process, and it goes:

You can have any given design in two of the following three ways:

- Fast
- Cheap
- Right

Cheap has already been selected, and speed is relative to each developer. It's a simple fact that for some people, this is a business which needs to put food on plates and roofs over heads. And, most of the really ground breaking, system intensive groups have at least a few people working in this manner. I'm not, for the record. My latest efforts were reimbursed at approximately 1/3 minimum wage.

"i agree, i wish companys would finish there products before release."

Well, wish in one hand and spit in the other; then see which gets full first.

If you're really tired of hastily released products, take matters into your own hands. The best way to do this would be de-selecting cheap. Offer up a living wage + benefits and overhead for either a solid development team or in support of a developer who is making an add-on you want. Last I heard, a competitive salary was about $60-$80,000 for a low level, college educated graphics design artist. Systems would best be handled by Engineers (probably a controls engineer, unless you also wanted the same engineer to double as flight model/physics), and a good entry level hire would again have a salary in the realm of $60,000. Also, be sure to account for either raises or turn-over. Be prepared for the salaries to steadily work up into the $100-$150,000/year range, or hire on interns to learn the trade for when the experienced professionals can no longer be afforded.

On the other hand. You could also take a solid look and realize there's another way. If a product needs to be perfect before you double click that executable, overcome buyers impulse and wait. Wait until you either hear it's bug free or until all known issues have been addressed.

Either way, regularly making angry/negative posts which offer up no productive solution is no way to motivate existing developers or bring about happiness in the many other individuals who seek out this hobby in a effort to relax and unwind.

Kiwikat

October 29th, 2009, 12:47

On the other hand. You could also take a solid look and realize there's another way. If a product needs to be perfect before you double click that executable, overcome buyers impulse and wait. Wait until you either hear it's bug free or until all known issues have been addressed.

Either way, regularly making angry/negative posts which offer up no productive solution is no way to motivate existing developers or bring about happiness in the many other individuals who seek out this hobby in a effort to relax and unwind.

It isn't about it being perfect when you first buy it. It is about it having the features they intend. Not having a FMC and its accompanying systems is HUGELY different from a product that does. Compare the default 747 to the PMDG 747. You can't. (Here's another example that most of you probably know) Not having a VC AT ALL is completely different from a product that has a fully working one.

It being bug free has nothing to do with it having a huge feature or not having a huge feature. I am fine buying a "buggy" product in which the developer plans to fix the bugs. The PMDG J41 is a good example. They didn't release it without a FMC. They didn't promise to add something huge like a FMC afterwards. It WAS relatively buggy, but it has now been fixed with a service pack.

It seems to be an increasing trend that developers are promising more HUGE features in future service packs, yet next to none of them have delivered.

The "productive" solution is for developers not to release unfinished products (note I didn't say anything about bugs or minor issues, those happen). It is what almost all consumers want and expect. It is also what almost every single developer already does! :kilroy:

Back to the C-5... I really hope they can turn this into a more complex simulation. The market for an accurate modern military aircraft is wide open.

Lionheart

October 29th, 2009, 16:19

Being a developer, I know how hard it is to make a single product that works perfect on every single computer, 'and' is appreciated by all who obtain it.

That just doesnt happen.

Second, I think they recieved a ton of responses on the FMC (probably because it looks so dang good) that they are going to go ahead and create or add an existing FMC software section to the package. They have offered to do this freely. That is pretty dang cool of them. The cost of adding this from a 3rd party will be expensive as FMC's are a HUGE (gigantic) sophisticated bit of programming, like you cannot imagine. (Open up the FSX GPS in Notepad and you will get an idea).

From what I saw, it is a nice looking plane. It is not a Cap. Sim model. It is a nice looking plane. I hate to hear overly critical stuff about new planes. Its a bit harsh in my own opion, but to each their own. Nothings perfect, everyone has updates. If you want something really really really cool, get a real one. Even those have updates, hidden gauges, squeaks, oil leaks. Always something to complain about.

:d

My humble two cents.

krazycolin

October 29th, 2009, 16:38

Going to agree with Lionheart on this one. It's hard enough to get just the basics right let alone doing 10,000 lines of code just for an FMC that most people won't even know how to use... (not saying that NO ONE knows... just most) (that includes me).

if i add my two cents that makes four. One more and we've got a nickel!!!!

kc

CG_1976

October 29th, 2009, 16:53

:ernae:Going to have to go with Lionheart and krazycolin. Also one should know what to do when the FMC goes out or on the fritz. Anotherwards toss the darn thing out and use the melon. Im pretty sure the military teaches this as part of training. Im leaning to purchase as it is for FSX anyway and so far the only one. Besides I have a panel editing program if i want to make adjustments to suit my needs.

tigisfat

October 30th, 2009, 21:06

Gator, how is the model shine? I have their cobra and the model shine makes the matte textures look like its been varnished. From the screen shots, it's hard to tell if the C-5 is truly matte.

Simkid, I respectfully request that you read this thread addressing ths very topic.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=280914#post280914

tigisfat

October 30th, 2009, 21:14

.....me too.

The FMC is not the pinnacle of simulation, and I've never seen an FMC in-sim that was correct and fully functioning anyway. Stuff like that is fun, but the aircraft that seem to sell the most (and actually make profit) are the ones striking a fair balance, like the aerosoft and IRIS F-16s. There are feel-good avionics to make you feel like you're in the real deal, but it's not overdone. I like aircraft that are crazy complicated but can still be CTRL E'd from time to time.

A developer could easily double the amount of time spent on a project just making perfect gauges, and they'd start taking money out of their own projects and food off their families plates. Full-on projects are always going to be the ones with the most mass appeal, like airliners.

Us Americans love our military aircraft, but Europe has a gigantic simming marketshare and most of that is in GA and commercial avation. I'm just happy there's a new C-5 out. These guys are making what I want.

Back to the topic: Can I see some very good VC shots from standard eyepoints?

JIMJAM

November 1st, 2009, 05:35

I wanna fly not sit there and not feel like I am punching on buttons on a fancy overpriced vending machine. For those with a button,number entering,mouse clicking fetish isnt there a fmc module that can be dropped in?
You want your fmc in your 152,Cub,P-47? Drop in your fmc and crunch numbers to your hearts content.
That would end the "wheres the fmc" cry.
And if you complain its the wrong bezel,the layout or software is outdated or to modern, uumm,time to go outside for awhile.:naturesm:

Don take this so seriously. Flight plans,rules,regs,fmcs,safety all just stand in my way of having fun. Also reminds me alot like work.
To try in a futile attempt to get back ot.
C-5s once filled the skies in Charleston where I flew in and out of alot. Controllers would ask if you had one in sight and I use to laught. Dam things use of most of the air and if you had a clear day and more than 4 or them it was called mostly cloudy.

Pepere

November 1st, 2009, 05:42

How is the land simulation? Do the tires smoke before they hit the pavement, like the default 747, or is it as real as it gets? Plus do any of ya have some VC photos, in the daylight?

David

tigisfat

November 2nd, 2009, 18:39

I'd still love some VC pictures, guys. Please?

Pepere

November 4th, 2009, 12:20

Must be the VC is just so bad no one can get a picture of it?:kilroy:

David

JohnC

November 4th, 2009, 12:28

Price drop, only $28 at their website:

http://www.area51sim.com/galaxy.html

tigisfat

November 5th, 2009, 08:13

c'mon, someone has it. I can't find more screenies anywhere.

bushpilot

November 5th, 2009, 08:25

This must be one of the hardest releases to get any info out of. I'd love to see those quality screenies of the VC too:monkies:.

JohnC

November 5th, 2009, 08:35

Tomorrow's payday, so I'll probably pick it up and post some shots then if no one else has.

calypsos

November 5th, 2009, 08:56

This must be one of the hardest releases to get any info out of. I'd love to see those quality screenies of the VC too:monkies:.

Maybe that fact should tell you to 'be cautious' before commiting to buying it. If it were up to some releases of recent months, this forum would be awash with pics!

rayhere48

November 5th, 2009, 10:18

I would like to know if all or most of the switches, dials, buttons and levers work. One thing that is not great is to see a great looking cockpit and then find that most of the buttons and other things are inoperative. Not saying the sim is bad just what I would like.

Gdavis101

November 5th, 2009, 11:28

I noticed its not on Simmarket anymore..

tigisfat

November 5th, 2009, 18:37

I noticed its not on Simmarket anymore..

hmmmm...

Can this product really be that bad? There's at least one person in this thread that bought it. Initial reviews aside, it actually looks really good. There just isn't any information on it besides a few bad reviews.

Pepere

November 5th, 2009, 19:02

I'm not buying until I get some pictures, VC, Landing tire smoke, and does it have a restroom? On long flights I just can't hold it! :kilroy:

David

heywooood

November 5th, 2009, 19:13

get it here for $30.00

http://www.pcaviator.com/dlstore/product.php?productid=663

tigisfat

November 5th, 2009, 21:05

get it here for $30.00

http://www.pcaviator.com/dlstore/product.php?productid=663

There are a few pics in that link I haven't seen before there. I'm edging closer to buying it, but I won't until I see some huge pics of the VC.

morpheusfz

November 6th, 2009, 02:07

I have it, its really cool... FPS in VC a bit heavy.

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-4.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-4-jpg.html)

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-5.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-5-jpg.html)

[/URL]

[URL="http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-7-jpg.html"]http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-7.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-6-jpg.html)

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-8.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-8-jpg.html)

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-9.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-9-jpg.html)

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-a.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-a-jpg.html)

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/thumbs/46hy-b.jpg (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/46hy-b-jpg.html)

tigisfat

November 6th, 2009, 14:52

Thank you!!

Can we have a pilot's eye-view shot? How are the sounds and flight dynamics? Will it taxi on low thrust settings?

peter12213

November 6th, 2009, 15:01

Great shots!!

Pepere

November 6th, 2009, 18:11

thank you!

David

JohnC

November 6th, 2009, 20:19

Tigisfat, here's the pilot's view you requested. I picked this up late enough in the day that I won't have any time to fly, so I can't go into much more detail than what you see. One thing worth noting is that the sound is aliased to the default 737. However, I don't find this to be too much of a bother since there are a couple of good sound sets, c5aglxrd.zip and cf680c2b.zip which can be picked up flightsim.com. I searched for "Galaxy Sound" and they were the first items returned.

Quixoticish

November 7th, 2009, 00:46

For those who own it, is there any sign of a repaint kit being released yet?

Lenny

November 7th, 2009, 04:19

For those who own it, is there any sign of a repaint kit being released yet?

Yes, the paintkit is released, see this topic on there site : http://www.area51sim.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=167#p167

grts,

Lenny

tigisfat

November 9th, 2009, 11:18

I need to release my soundpack, it's the real deal TF-39s. If you choose to have the C-5M as it's depicted, the default CLS 747-200 sounds or CLS DC-10 sounds will be just great.

I think I am going to buy it. It looks like a fairly solid 30 dollar release. Noone would complain about the cartoony VC textures if this release would've come a few years ago.

John, any more impressions of quality or lack thereof to speak of? The handling?

JohnC

November 9th, 2009, 12:00

I was able to take it out for a reasonably long flight and here was my impression. I'm tempted to do a little work on the fm/engine model...will definitely need to talk with the developer first.

Good:
- It's a C-5!
- My cold and dark default flight files are compatible with it, so C&D starts are a go.
- I can't go into much detail here because everything is very subjective. Bottom line is that I enjoy what I picked up for $30, and with a little bit of digital wrench turning it could be a great heavy to fly when not in the mood for something as complicated as a PMDG.

Given that, here's a list of what I think could be done better/fixed:

- Biggest problem I noted in the fm given that I've never analyzed a C-5M, which means I could be totally wrong; is that the body fixed x-axis (longitudinal) is offset from the atmospheric relative x-axis when defining lift and moment coefficients vs angle of attack. When flying straight and level at cruise, my pitch attitude varied between -2 and -4 degrees depending on load and altitude.

- Wrong engines; The defined thrust rating fits the TF39-GE-1C (C-5B) rather than the CF6-80-C2 of the C-5M. Pretty easy to fix though if desired.

- I changed the minimum throttle from 0.25 to -0.05 for a better range of throttle control.

- There's a little distortion on the PFD when looking straight at it, but it goes away as the view pans (you can see this in the pictures I posted)

- There's a couple of disconnects with the autopilot I had to get used to. First, on the Autopilot module above the PFD, units are imperial but on the FMS they are in SI. Also, when adjusting for optimum engine/aerodynamic conditions I always use Mach Number. However, on the PFD and I believe autopilot, it is set in knots and not updated until you change it again. So, you if set the FD to climb at a certain mach, you're actually climbing at a constant speed which is the mach number at the instant you set it, and will be steadily increasing the flight mach number as the climb progresses.

Hope this was helpful.

Pepere

November 9th, 2009, 17:04

JohnC how are the touch down effects? Are they like the default 747 (way off) or right on?

David

JohnC

November 9th, 2009, 18:21

Effects aren't my thing, so I can't tell you how this compares to other aircraft..but this is what I see from the tower view.

Pepere

November 9th, 2009, 19:46

Thanks for the views. Does not look too bad. Course I'm not an expert on C-5s. May have to purchase this one. Next month or Jan. Funds ya know!

David

CG_1976

November 9th, 2009, 22:21

She flies nice around Canada's Arctic. Anyone have shockwave coordinates by chance. I did a rare night landing at Goose Bay. Only note its throttle has a tendency to zoom full and I have to peel back 50% to stabilize at 315 knots cruise for Transcon.

arrowmaker

November 13th, 2009, 04:37

Seeing as this apparently has very little systems modelling I've come to the conclusion that I may as well stick with my old Alphasim Galaxy. Combined with Christoffer Petersen's freeware C-5 Galaxy Sound Pack, it still makes a nice addition to any hangar, even if it is a bit long in the tooth.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmSe-Eaj9Zw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmSe-Eaj9Zw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

calypsos

November 13th, 2009, 05:22

Has anyone here had terrible FR's with this beast? I was chatting to guy yesterday who had bought it and he deleted it because it was one of the biggest frame hogs he has seen for ages! Insted of the usual 26 FPS he only saw about 10 in the VC.

TheOptimist

November 13th, 2009, 09:43

*Post postponed...*

Rezabrya

November 13th, 2009, 09:54

Optimist, you do realize this is Area51sim... not Alphasim right?

TheOptimist

November 13th, 2009, 10:10

Optimist, you do realize this is Area51sim... not Alphasim right?

No :icon_lol:

My mate said it was alphasim. I don't know much about Area51sim - I'll look into them and see whether the post still stands.

tigisfat

November 16th, 2009, 23:44

Well, this is a dissapointment. I guess I won't get it after all. It looks great, but it's still a simple aircraft and I won't put up with cruddy FPS from a simple aircraft. It's had way to many bad reviews already as well. It's a shame that it's so underloved that there aren't even any youtube videos yet. I was hoping for much more information, but the bad reviews speak for themselves.

I was also kinda hoping that the area51sim people would show up and defend it, possibly even explaining a bit of it, but I can't expect or demand that. Oh well.

Gdavis101

November 17th, 2009, 12:01

Every time I am toppling off the fence to buy this one I find a new reason not to. I to would like to hear more from the guys over at Area 51.

Cag40Navy

November 17th, 2009, 16:39

they said to me, there "improving" and is "up to THIER standards", to be honest, im glad im hearing from other people bout this beast.

michael davies

November 18th, 2009, 05:52

Optimist, you do realize this is Area51sim... not Alphasim right?

Detailed comparison reveals that this is the old Alphasim C-5 redone by another publisher for FSx, comparing the VCs and external model, most of it is poly for poly identical to the old Alphasim one.

On the face of it it appears that the author has redone the model for FSx and published it via another developer, thats his remit of course and good luck to him in all fairness if thats what he wants to do. However it is essentially a reworked FS9 model for FSx and brings along with it the poly limits from the previous sim, it is not a bespoke FSx mesh that takes advantages of all that the FSx SDK can offer these days.

There does also appear to be some concern over the FDE as much appears identical to the old Alphasim one, that would need the original FDE authors consent, which may well have been freely given as I am sure has been.

The C-5 publishers also have a B-2 and F-22 in the works, previews show they look very close to the old Alphasim ones, strangely also from the same author as the C-5, draw your own conclusions.

As we say at work rather crudely, a granny dressed in mini skirt and high heels, technically a FS9 model compiled for FSx I'm afraid, shame as the original mesh looked to have much potential for serious reworks and upgrades, but once again short cutted to get to market....probably before Alphasim did theirs as was originally planned....so I've heard whispered !.

Kindest

Michael

tigisfat

November 18th, 2009, 06:47

Well that's just cute. The premise is just fine and dandy, but reusing one of the worst payware jet FDEs ever built is kinda insulting.

That seals it. I will never buy this product. The FDE ruined the Alphasim model for me. I got tired of having to taxi on 75% thrust. I spent months making my soundpack for the Alphasim model, only to find out that the engines would be blaring away at damn near full throttle on final approach just to maintain speed. Give me a break. I don't feel bad about posting negative stuff anymore, either.

This proves that that ethese new guys aren't out to provide us with a good or correct product. They just want dough.