SU-26 is out!!

[JAllen]

Zlin...you are not going to get what you are looking for. So, until a sim module is built to add something to FSX please don't trash people's hard work. Just asking nicely, ok.

Maybe you could fine tune an FDE and show us all how it is supposed to fly. Could you try that approach instead?

Jim

[skyhawka4m]

Zlin...you are not going to get what you are looking for. So, until a sim module is built to add something to FSX please don't trash people's hard work. Just asking nicely, ok.

Maybe you could fine tune an FDE and show us all how it is supposed to fly. Could you try that approach instead?

Jim

+1...total agreement. If I had any idea of how to do it...I'd be on it now.

[gtirob01]

Im not buying this because of its aerobatic "realism". I'm buying it because it is an awesome looking aircraft! The pics of it are stunning and I know I can have fun in this thing.

One question.... Does the download require any type of online activation? Or do you just download and fly it once purchased? Reason I ask is because I do not currently have internet at home.

[JAllen]

I entered the key provided and do not know or had any indication of an online process after that. Perhaps best asked of Alabeo.

Looks really sweet. Surprised at how short the takeoff was. In the air it has very sensitive control response to the way my stick is calibrated. View from the cockpit is unusual in that you sit very low. Kept trying to "sit up" more but found the canopy right there. Looks right by a video I saw.

Enjoyed stalling it out and hearing the stall warning go off. Instantly twists and turns on a dime. More so than the Pitts it seemed. Had the feeling it would do anything. In fact, I just jerked the stick and rudder around violently to see what happened...I just got dizzy. The aircraft was still with me.

Tomorrow I'll see if I can land it.

Jim

[skyhawka4m]

Landings are fun also....I side slip all the way in until just before touch down.....very interesting.

[snowbird552]

Have to back up Zlin on this one... I agree that people should not trash a developers product; however, if that developer makes false advertisements then they should be accountable. The following is from Alabeo's site...

Features:
Blank textures for creating your own designs.
Custom smoke effect
REAL Flight Model
High quality 3D model, textures and sounds.
Detailed aerobatics maneuvers PDF.
Get Free Liveries after you buy it!

Making a statement like this is quite misleading and creates the expectations of the consumer.

[Barnes]

Have to back up Zlin on this one... I agree that people should not trash a developers product; however, if that developer makes false advertisements then they should be accountable. The following is from Alabeo's site...

Features:
Blank textures for creating your own designs.
Custom smoke effect
REAL Flight Model
High quality 3D model, textures and sounds.
Detailed aerobatics maneuvers PDF.
Get Free Liveries after you buy it!

Making a statement like this is quite misleading and creates the expectations of the consumer.

Wow - in that case you can probably find a way of accusing every dev of unwittingly making misleading promises !!

[gtirob01]

Have to back up Zlin on this one... I agree that people should not trash a developers product; however, if that developer makes false advertisements then they should be accountable. The following is from Alabeo's site...

Features:
Blank textures for creating your own designs.
Custom smoke effect
REAL Flight Model
High quality 3D model, textures and sounds.
Detailed aerobatics maneuvers PDF.
Get Free Liveries after you buy it!

Making a statement like this is quite misleading and creates the expectations of the consumer.

Misleading? How so? I have never actually flown a real SU-26, so I wouldnt know the difference either way. I just want to have some fun with a great looking aircraft. Im sure a majority of buyers feel the same. If you want a real, 100% authentic, no holds barred flight model.... go to Russia, and get yourself into the real deal and tell us all how it compared.

[snowbird552]

Wow - in that case you can probably find a way of accusing every dev of unwittingly making misleading promises !!

Unwittingly? Seems pretty direct and straight forward to me, not sure how someone would post that without being aware of how it would be interpreted lol. Maybe I should release an F-18 sound pack with "Real F-18 sounds" but use recordings from a 737, it's a jet and should be good enough, right? Think anyone would be angry if it was payware? I rarely make negative comments, infact I think this is probably only the 2nd time I have done so (1st being the Alphasim C-17 VC fiasco). If Alabeo wasn't able to reproduce a real flight model due to FSX limitations that is completely understandable. All they had to do was leave that line out or modify it to be accurate.

[napamule]

Quote: '...unwittingly making misleading promises..'

I don't know about 'unwittingly' but the modeler is in it to make money, not please a fan base. And there is no MORAL dilema involved. He doesn't even KNOW how to fly it? He could care less if it CAN fly. He wants your money, and will haggle with you later about refund, if necessary. There is nobody that will RATE it prior to release. No fact sheet. No spec sheet. You are buying a picture/model that you can fly in FSX. That's IT. Nothing says it will perform like the real AC (or any AC, fictional or imagined). You get: Good, Bad, or Ugly. Case closed.
Chuck B
Napamule

[snowbird552]

Misleading? How so? I have never actually flown a real SU-26, so I wouldnt know the difference either way. I just want to have some fun with a great looking aircraft. Im sure a majority of buyers feel the same. If you want a real, 100% authentic, no holds barred flight model.... go to Russia, and get yourself into the real deal and tell us all how it compared.

Yeah, i'll get right on that Russia trip... I'm not critising them for not being able to make it accurate, just for advertising that it is accurate. If you bought a toaster that looked nice, but didn't actually toast anything, I imagine you would find the fact that they called it a toaster a bit misleading, right? Would you write a review about how nice the toaster looked or ask for a refund? I'm failing to understand how people are confused by this simple concept and how it is misleading.

[gtirob01]

It would be misleading to me if I were a real world SU-26 pilot, and I found that this model for FSX is not the same, or even close. Then, and only then may you have a point. But really, how many people on here have actually flown a real SU-26? How many people can truly say if it is accurate or not? At the end of the day, this is a sim, and a sim to have a little fun.

Your toaster argument is like apples to oranges. Everybody has a toaster and knows what they should do, and how they should do it. If I got a bad toaster, I bring it back to the store I bought it from and get a replacement.

[snowbird552]

[QUOTE=gtirob01;686095]It would be misleading to me if I were a real world SU-26 pilot, and I found that this model for FSX is not the same, or even close. Then, and only then may you have a point. But really, how many people on here have actually flown a real SU-26? How many people can truly say if it is accurate or not? At the end of the day, this is a sim, and a sim to have a little fun. QUOTE]

Actually a SIMULATOR is to SIMULATE and have a little fun. I am a real world pilot and have seen the SU-26 (based at my home airport) perform at airshows in southern Alberta, Canada. Real world can knife edge for a short period of time and maintain altitude, sim su-26 drops out of the sky and I know for a fact that this is not a sim limitation as ive done it with many other sim aircraft. Again, the issue i'm at is over the marketing of the aircraft, that is all. No reason this has to turn into a 'how dare you insult a dev!' thread... Carenado (who I believe is either the same company or related) has produced many outstanding aircraft (I own around 10 of them I think) and I have always been overwhelmingly pleased.

[Roger]

Snowbird is it really that bad? This is yet another thread dumping on someone's hard work and let's face it just to get the model to look that good must have taken considerable effort! Did you contact the developer first to see if any issues had been reported or to make a report yourself?

Frankly with these stickies of new releases being blasted from a great height it seems it would be better to simply have an announcements page!

If our FsX developers are so poor, deserving so many damning posts of late, then perhaps MS Flight would suit better because the guys who make the sim and all the add-ons are all under the same roof so complaining is easier.

[SeanTK]

Come on, people....a few observations. Some of these points essentially repeat:

1. Developers can and do make mistakes and/or release things when they feel they are "close enough". This can be proven through such things as the issuance of patches, whether initiated through the developer, or though a wide amount of constructive criticism.

2. I'm sure we all appreciate new aircraft releases, whether or not they're payware or freeware. On that note, I don't care if something is freeware, payware, or if the dev has an "outstanding" reputation either way. If something is wrong, they should be told about it, and the developer (and their supporters) should not act indignant when the facts are presented. This also relates to this strange mindset on various forums that "freeware (and some payware) developers can do no wrong or do not make mistakes!". (I have actually heard the argument used in one case that developer XYZ does not make mistakes in their addons..when a realism issue popped up.)

3. Let those who know, help those who don't. Sometimes, those who know didn't make the aircraft, or have the opportunity to test for those who don't. As people have said, we are here to help each other, and developers of aircraft should be open to that help if a flaw is pointed out!

The following is really what I have issue with lately:

4. Related to the quality of work of any/all addons: We absolutely must not rest on our laurels! I've seen posters here and elsewhere say, when confronted with criticism, that the end-user should simply be happy that the product was made, and that because someone put effort into it, that's all that counts. If we didn't continue to push ourselves for ever higher standards of excellence, we would still be using a sim and addons with the capabilities of a decade ago, if not more so. Yes, there is a line of critique that may not be appropriate for the time...this includes rivet counting in the *literal* sense.

However, if some are pushing for accurate systems, sounds, or a flight model, which should be well within the capabilities of a developer willing to put in effort (unless the info is classified or something) why is that an argument to be rejected? Every addon maker out there...freeware/payware...whatever is capable of producing products to the highest standards of today's "known companies with high standards", such as one that recently created a 737.

5. Criticism must be tactful. Unfortunately, some seem to think that any criticism is uncalled for.
What I look for if I voice a complaint is the following: 1. What the problem is. 2. What the real world aircraft/scenery location/whatever is like in reality, with examples to support that. 3. Advice on how to accomplish this goal, or compromise to get closer to that goal of realism or a fix in general.

6. Developers should do their best to push themselves to make the most realistic adaptations of aircraft/scenery possible! If something comes up leading to the lack of implementation of a feature, especially if it is wanted or expected, then maybe a note saying "this is what we aimed for and accomplished, this is what could not be accomplished for x, y, z reasons. Maybe someone can help?"



Regarding this Sukhoi specifically, I have yet to purchase due to the facts presented. These are:
1. It apparently does not sound accurate at all. (Allegedly not even a radial engine sound)
2. The flight model is not nearly close enough. Now, we know that the FS engine can't do much with aerobatic physics anyway, but this issue sounds like it goes beyond that.
3. It *does* look good. Exterior modelling seems to be fine.
4. Summary...nice picture with no substance.

Issue 1 can be fixed with proper research and implementation.
Issue 2 can be addressed to a closer extent. We all know it can't be perfect due to the aerobatic nature, but it sounds like it can closer.
Non-issue 3...haven't heard a bad thing about the looks!



All in all....

Criticism of any product, freeware or payware, should be allowed. The key here is presenting it with evidence, and not simply saying, "X aspect of this addon sucks!". Instead "X aspect is inaccurate and could be better...here's why".

No developer is so good that they are beyond needing help, making mistakes, etc.

No end-user is entitled to get everything that they ask for in an addon, BUT, the developer should be willing to push themselves to the best of their abilities, rather than relying on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" development mentality. If it can't be done/implemented, it can't...but bringing up a neat aspect that *may* be able to be isn't a bad thing.

Yes, expectations are high, but developers should be willing to work with that and raise the bar. "OK, we can't put in dynamically moving fuzzy-dice, but we'll put in X for you instead, how about that?"

I don't think anyone here is expecting an aircraft to be the end-all, be-all of simulator addons. We're looking for realism that's practical and able to be implemented, not the ability to run our virtual fingers across individual modeled fibers in a cloth seat or something.


Developers: It's not what you can do, it's what you could do. Push yourselves to try new things. Lead the pack with the quality of your addons. Put realism at the forefront!
End-Users: Be tactful when addressing issues. Push, but don't bully developers into excelling further and outputting their very best!