Su-27

[noddy]

http://secure.simmarket.com/afs-design-sukhoi-su-27-fsx.phtml

I know that the previous offerings from the Dev have not been brilliant, but I am almost tempted!

[MCDesigns]

Agreed. Saw it earlier and the Vc doesn't look to bad, interested to hear what other think that end up getting it.

[falcon409]

. . . . .I know that the previous offerings from the Dev have not been brilliant, but I am almost tempted!
Personally, I don't care for him or his work, but looking at the screens, the external model looks pretty well done, there are a lot of liveries and the VC texturing looks pretty good as well. The only things I noticed were that there are not many, if any, custom gauges. . .everything appears to be default and there's no mention of a sound package with it, so does that mean it's aliased to another aircraft (like the Lear?lol). Finally, the price is not bad at all for what you appear to get with this package.

[Ferry_vO]

Hmmm, the nose looks odd on these Flankers. Too short IMHO, and the two-seater cockpit is too short as well. Only default gauges, no mention of a soundpack or a true native FsX model, and I have no idea what those missiles are supposed to be?

Think I'll pass on this one, no matter how much I like Russian aircraft!

[Tweek]

Hmmm, the nose looks odd on these Flankers. Too short IMHO, and the two-seater cockpit is too short as well.

Thought much the same. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-30MKM/1591646/L/ Canopy isn't long enough, and is the wrong shape in places. The less said about the nose, the better.

I'll pass on these, and will go on LO:MAC if I'm desperate for any Flanker action!

[hschuit]

Fully agree with the previous 2 posters on the exterior model flaws. No surprise as this has been a weakness with other products of this developer. It may not exactly be the Su-27 but Alphasim's FS2004 Su-33 looks much better and it works in FSX.

Henk.

[VFR Reviews]

Oh dear lord, an SU-27.... I am most very very tempted indeed. But I don't think I trust this dev :( Why are Russian jets sooooo neglected? Ugh :p

[djscoo]

Port

[kilo delta]

All of AFS-Design's offerings thus far have been ports.

[djscoo]

Sorry, but this is unacceptable...I sent an email to simmarket, though I doubt I'll hear back. I know this has been covered before a million times, but they could at least put an asterisk on ports. Next time I'll let some other sucker buy it first...:a1451:

[IanP]

The stores only have the information provided by the vendor to go on to say the compatibility or functionality of anything that comes in. They cannot possibly test every add-on so assuming they can somehow mark them to say what they are is pretty unrealistic, djscoo.

As you say, this has been covered many times before and as k-d said, every other Meyer product has been a port, so even a tiny bit of research would have gone a long way, as usual. ;)

[Scratch]

One of these days we will get a decent Su-27, but this ain't it:kilroy:
The vigil continues...........................:isadizzy:

[MCDesigns]

Sorry, but this is unacceptable...I sent an email to simmarket, though I doubt I'll hear back. I know this has been covered before a million times, but they could at least put an asterisk on ports. Next time I'll let some other sucker buy it first...:a1451:

I agree completely!

BTW the vendors email is listed on the product page, we should all send an email about proper labeling of products.

[peter12213]

I agree also, I'm yet to see 1 decent aircraft from afs design, I despirately hope one day we will get a decent flanker for fsx but as Scratch said, this ain't it!

[Roger]

This is misrepresentation by omission. Demand your money back and delete the product.
If they don't agree let us know. There are enough people using Dx10 for unlabelled port-overs to be wholly unacceptable.

[MenendezDiego]

Here is what I think of all this Su-27 port over nonsense!

NsQRl3hyRlM

Regards, Diego

[Scratch]

Hmm....that sure looks like LOMAC:kilroy:

[MenendezDiego]

lol it sure is

[peter12213]

Thats a great vid!

[MenendezDiego]

Thanks, I tried to make then feel realistic

dnR3W41pIzE

0xft1HtgDZ8

Diego

[bazak]

http://secure.simmarket.com/afs-design-sukhoi-su-27-fsx.phtml

I know that the previous offerings from the Dev have not been brilliant, but I am almost tempted!

dont be tempted, go for the alphasim su27, there's a couple of
variants, 5 textures and many more if you browes the internet.
i got a.f.s mig 29 and as with there su27 they have rockets
slung all over, it was a waste of money, at least with alphasim
you can change weapons.
bazak.

[IanP]

I sincerely hope you mean DEVELOPER and not VENDOR, Michael, as the vendor is plain from the host of the product page.

However, if you really want to pay full time wages for a team of people to test every add-on, product and tool that becomes available through all the online sales sites and then add the cost on top of the mark up you already pay for products through them then you are more than welcome - I'm sure a number of people would love that job.

The problem here is no different than buying a boxed product in a shop. The responsibility for labelling and describing a product marketed through any location other than a developer's own site or store has to lie with the developer or publisher (usually, in FS circles, these are the same people) themselves. I don't expect a high street store to test every package that they sell - it's impossible - and the same applies to online download stores as well. The people to put pressure on are the developers and publishers who misrepresent their products. You are quite within your rights (dependent on the country the shop is in, which is always an issue) to ask for a refund - which is a sticky mess anyway with download products, but that's a different argument - but if you actually want the labelling to improve, it needs to come from the people writing the descriptions in the first place.

Or, quite simply, you pay more per product to get every one tested and often a new description written before it before on sale through a shop. At which point the complaint would be "Why do you put such a massive mark up on products you rip-off scum!?" rather than "Why did you not label this product as to exactly what it is rather than what the developer says it is, you rip off scum!?"

See the problem?

[djscoo]

I received a refund today...SimMarket pulled through, and my faith in them has been restored.:ernae:

[peter12213]

thats great news, you know what really p'd me off with the mig 29, the control stick didn't pull backwards I really like photoreal VC's but this just takes the biscuit for absolute terribleness, I only hope that one day we will have a native su27 series of flankers worthy of this sim!!

[DennyA]

They cannot possibly test every add-on so assuming they can somehow mark them to say what they are is pretty unrealistic, djscoo.
Huh? If you're going to sell something, you darn well should test it.

These online stores essentially are the publishers with payware. It's their responsibility to check out products before they offer them, IMHO.

[Gibbage]

Huh? If you're going to sell something, you darn well should test it.

These online stores essentially are the publishers with payware. It's their responsibility to check out products before they offer them, IMHO.

Do you really thing a store like Best Buy has the responsability of testing everything that it puts on its shelf? No. Its up to the Dev to do what it can to make sure it puts out a good products for the customers, not the store. If the store gets a lot of grief, they tend to pull the products and give it back to the dev.

[dharris]

If you really need an su-27 these are free, not the best but the best price. http://www.simviation.com/simviation/?ID=64&page=13&mark=3160

http://www.simviation.com/simviation/?ID=64&page=11&mark=2732

for panel http://www.simviation.com/simviation/?ID=67&page=1&mark=2726