|
Post by Dan on Jul 7, 2006 23:41:01 GMT -5
'Sounds' good to me - your idea that is. It is still downloading, so I won't know anything until later tonight - as far as the performance on a mid-range system goes anyway - it's going to be a long night, I can tell already. I've been reading a number of Aerosoft forum inputs - seems it is by the book only - similiar to the King Air and a number of different solutions to problems that are showing up. Ahhhh, nothing like a 'new' model on a Friday night - it's tinker, tinker time - - Thanks for the input, Keith. It's much appreciated! Dan …it’s great being a kid again – without the glue! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Keith on Jul 7, 2006 23:55:52 GMT -5
... I wonder why the download version is 10USD more than the CD version will be? That's kind of strange. It's usually the other way around. Yep. Sounds like they want to make as much money in as little time as possible. Not fair though when they advertised the CD version at $29. I figured the Download would be about $24-$26. I was way off on that but got it anyway. I give it a 3 out of 5. It's "OK" but thats about it. I do know that I have posted 2 questions in the support forums and it's been 12 hours or more and not one has been adressed by anyone other than another customer. With only a few posts in the forums you would think you would get beter service for nearly $40.
|
|
|
Post by Kofi on Jul 8, 2006 1:05:29 GMT -5
... I wonder why the download version is 10USD more than the CD version will be? That's kind of strange. It's usually the other way around. Yep. Sounds like they want to make as much money in as little time as possible. Not fair though when they advertised the CD version at $29. I figured the Download would be about $24-$26. I was way off on that but got it anyway. I give it a 3 out of 5. It's "OK" but thats about it. I do know that I have posted 2 questions in the support forums and it's been 12 hours or more and not one has been adressed by anyone other than another customer. With only a few posts in the forums you would think you would get beter service for nearly $40. Perhaps the download version is more expensive because the people that pre-orded the CD Boxed version *should* have got it first....
|
|
|
Post by windrunner on Jul 8, 2006 6:08:40 GMT -5
I was gonna jump on it untill I saw the price. But now I can't decide if to go on: I've seen their Dornier 27 and looks very promising...hopefully it won't late so much to see how much it will cost in the end. And how many pc resources will eat... ;D
Money, money, money...everything going higher than 20 euro deserves a good reflection before buying (to me). Well, with less of 30 euros you can't even go the supermarket here, so it's not really unaffordable; but the point is, why to buy such expensive addons? and support people who offer them?
(Ok, no more Out of Topics crap)
The plane looks really nice, and if it behaves like the Aeroworx B200, I may consider not eating today and buy it...never say never. There's always a bank to robe on your town...
|
|
|
Post by sgtmajor on Jul 8, 2006 9:02:55 GMT -5
I saw this yesterday just as I was leaving the house for a short weekend business meeting/get away. Hmmmm.... I think I'll wait until RealAir Simulations Duke comes out. From past purchases I know it will be worth every penny no matter WHAT the price. Too bad.... like others have said, the Promo looked very promising indeed. www.realairsimulations.com/coming_soon/index.php
|
|
|
Post by Keith on Jul 8, 2006 9:19:39 GMT -5
Well, I was just a little disappointed to see the gauge and VC panel lighting quality because the same developer that did the Flight1 ATR also did the Cheyenne. I guess I was just expecting more. All in all it's a nice plane and maybe with a service release things will get a little better. The performance is sluggish and about the same as the larger more complex jets and I am not sure why since there is no glass in the Cheyenne, but there are both good and bad points. I guess it's all personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 8, 2006 18:18:11 GMT -5
Well, after about 9 hours in this plane (both in the cockpit and the files) - I'll have to say it's just about what I expected for it's high quality, operational complexity (its real) and after reading the initial reviews last night. It's about the same as the King Air when I first got it - actually a little bit better on the initial break-in, as far as fps performance goes. It wasn't until I edited out (//) the King Air's wings and rudder recently, that it started to fly well. And it's the same with this one - even though I edited out // several items last night and this afternoon with no increase in performance - seems the fps are the same whether the GPS/Radios/etc. are // out or not - at least on my medium configured system. Even tried to DXT3 one set of panel textures to no avail - actually blew the set up by doing that (there already DXT1) so that didn't work. Even let some air out of the tires - no difference. The cockpit textures, both 2d & VC and the cabin textures are excellent as cockpits/cabins go - very realistic - and the night gauge illumination is very nice. I really like the seating design in relation to the panels/cockpit, but that's due to Piper's design not flight sim. The sounds are excellent as Keith noted last night - beautiful to listen to. So all in all, I've gone through every emotion with this plane over the past 24 hours - from being totally p***off for spending the money on it, to 'you know, it's not bad', to 'I really do like it', to 'damn this thing is fast' - it does get up and go! ;D I actually was proud of my 2.6 fps landing last night - in the dark, one engine out, buzzers going off everywhere, and the Redhead screaming her head off - - touched down just left of center, 3/4 down the runway, and stopped just short of the grass. I know, it was incredible!! The only thing I really miss over the King Air is the coffee machine - it doesn't have one. But it does allow one to place it on a runway with the engines running and the radios on (it's got enough radios, you can talk to your grandmother, girlfriend, wife, and the tower all at once) - - and take right offffffffffffff into the wild blue - - - I'll have to agree with Keith - it really comes down to personnel preference. Would I buy it again - Yes ;D ;D Dan …it’s great being a kid again – without the glue! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Keith on Jul 8, 2006 19:48:03 GMT -5
Dan,
Glad you like it. I am hoping that I may wakeup tomorrow and feel the same way. It's a good plane but I just cant understand why (oh why) does a plane with all analog gauges have to be so hard on the frames. I get about 21-27 fps which is good but normally (like on the King Air) I get 34-38 and no pauses or stutter. I guess we can agree on a few things... the fact that it looks, sounds and handles great (and it is very fast) but I like the King air better for it's longer range and more seating capacity and the fact that it runs very well on my system, and knowing myself i am sure I will find the frame-rate stealing culprit and fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 8, 2006 22:33:01 GMT -5
Keith, when you find that frame-rate stealing culprit and fix it, please let me know, as I can only handle 2.6 fps landings a few times a night! I know what you mean about the analog panels - that's the same way I felt about the King Air analog panel option with the 2nd version - it was billed to be easier on framerates and their was a lot of excitement about it. But, when the B200 was finally released, at least on my system, the analog version was and still is worse then the glass. Doesn't make much sense to me either - hasn't for over a year now. If I had to choose between the two planes - it would be the King Air as well, more so because of it's real life design characteristics (Beech), but this is a nice change. There's something about wing tip tanks that brings out that youthful 'fighter pilot' frame of mind in a general aviation aircraft - - Dan …it’s great being a kid again – without the glue! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kbr on Jul 8, 2006 23:14:42 GMT -5
Dan, Glad you like it. I am hoping that I may wakeup tomorrow and feel the same way. It's a good plane but I just cant understand why (oh why) does a plane with all analog gauges have to be so hard on the frames. I get about 21-27 fps which is good but normally (like on the King Air) I get 34-38 and no pauses or stutter. I guess we can agree on a few things... the fact that it looks, sounds and handles great (and it is very fast) but I like the King air better for it's longer range and more seating capacity and the fact that it runs very well on my system, and knowing myself i am sure I will find the frame-rate stealing culprit and fix it. I get the same problem with Dreamfleet's Beech Baron. Regardless of what I do, it hovers around 20. When I get an average of 30+ fps in the Aeroworx B200 (glass vc version), that doesn't seem to make since. I've been wanting to get a new by the books turboprop GA, so I had been watching for the Cheyenne. I haven't written it off yet. I'll wait until the CD version is available and see if Aerosoft has released any fixes for these issues. In the meantime, I just got F1's Piper Meridian. After changing the 530s with RXP's newer version and installing a working weather radar, I have to say I am very pleased with this plane. Flies like a dream. Also a very by the book turboprop (just what I wanted). The only turboprop that I have that is more realistic is Aeroworx's King Air. I had wanted to get the Meridian back when it was newer, but didn't because I was given the impression that it wouldn't run well on the machine I had at the time. It just acured to me yesterday that it would probably run fine on my current machine. I'm glad I decided to give it a chance, even though it's been around for a while, IMO it's still on par with the current crop of turbos coming out.
|
|
|
Post by Keith on Jul 9, 2006 8:23:47 GMT -5
I just got F1's Piper Meridian. After changing the 530s with RXP's newer version and installing a working weather radar, I have to say I am very pleased with this plane. Flies like a dream. Also a very by the book turboprop (just what I wanted). The only turboprop that I have that is more realistic is Aeroworx's King Air. Ahhh... a good choice as always. In my real-world flight logs I have many more hours in the King Air B200 (300-350 range) than in the Piper Meridian (about 60-65) but I also like the F1 Meridian a lot as well. It is not as close (to reality) as the Aeroworx B200 but is comes in a very close second in the turbo-prop category. I would like to say the PC12 is as close (I think it is) but I have never flown one in real life so I cant say for sure. Same with the Cheyenne, but I can say that the Cheyenne sounds very realistic... very realistic. They have that distinctive high-pitched whine of the Cheyenne just right. I have been around them so much at the airfield that I know the sound well. Honestly they annoy me a bit. The B200 has a deeper "drone" and Aeroworx had that down very close as well. The Cheyenne does fly well but since I have never flown one of those either I can't say for sure it is spot on but it sure feel like it would be. Once I figure out what is causing the drag in performance (fps) I will post the cure. Today I think I will fly my next leg in the Seattle to Tokyo trip.
|
|
|
Post by kbr on Jul 9, 2006 16:52:57 GMT -5
I don't have F1's PC12, but it is probably a future purchase. Any model that is praised by the actual airplane manufacturer has got to be pretty good. I've done a few flights in the F1 Meridian and I already like it a lot. The only downside to this plane is that it comes with that older RXP 530 which is a framerate killer. I changed to a newer one, but lost some functionality in the EHSI. However, setting the EHSI to VLOC still gives me most of the functions. Anything that I loose though isn't that big of a deal since the GPS is just a few centimeters from the EHSI. ;D While downloading some paints for this plane yesterday, I found your wonderful Malibu 20th anniversary paint. How did you ever get those DXT textures to look like 32bit textures? Thanks for making it available. I'm currently planning a flight from Seattle to Juneau. Last time I did this route, it was non stop in the Beech KA B200, but this time I plan to take a little rest on the way at Sandspit.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 9, 2006 22:10:46 GMT -5
Wow Keith, I am amazed at your response to the Cheyenne. The only thing I agree with you about is the GPS. I intend to replace it as well although after reading what you wrote it might not be as easy as I had hoped I like the VC lighting but that is stricktly presonal preferance. I really dont get any stutters on my system either. My rig is no fire breater, maybe a hot breath on the back of your neck but deffinatly not fire Overall I think the Aeroworx KA is a better plane but that is strongly influenced by my own personal bias. The KA is just so damned sexy
|
|
|
Post by Keith on Jul 10, 2006 8:58:06 GMT -5
Boomer, Some of what I like or dislike about the Cheyenne is my personal preference as you pointed out. But, most of the other issues are fact. Like the 550mb install size and the framerate hungry nature of the plane. I quoted the developer stating that the plane was "pushing the limits of FS" and that is the reason for the performance hogging. That is a know fact by the developer of the aircraft and not just my opinion. As I said, I think the plane looks and responds very well... just not well enough to justify the 550mb install size and the way it sucks up CPU usage.... not for a small plane with analog gauges anyway. I could understand if it were a heavy jet with full glass but honestly even they do not suck the life from my PC (any many other people's as well from reading the support forums) like this. Next time you run the aircraft, open task manager and look at how much RAM is being used and compare that to some planes that you think are frame killers, and you will see the Cheyenne is at the top of the list of CPU hungry planes. Even with that though there is no denying that the Cheyenne is a nice plane. I never said it wasn't, and I will continue to use it as long as it behaves... I am just saying that the costs (PC performance that is as well as the price tag) for being nice far exceed that of other "nice" analog gauge aircraft. I have posted some shots below to show what I am basing my statements on: Cheyenne's Panel (no panel lights) Cheyenne's Panel (with panel lights)... I have never seen a panel get so black in the day-time just because you turn on the panel lights??? Cheyenne's VC without and with panel light... looks OK in the VC. Cheyenne's VC gauges ZOOM to 4+ .... Looks really choppy (see the B200 below to compare) Aeroworx B200 at 4+ is still very nice, clean and readable Cheyenne's CPU usage.... compare that to the B200 below. Aeroworx B200... WOW what a difference huh? King Air B200 Panel without and with Panel Lights.... King Air B200 VC... and 4+ ZOOM on gauges King Air B200 CPU usage...
|
|
|
Post by Keith on Jul 10, 2006 9:27:30 GMT -5
Since this is not really a screenshot topic anymore let us move it to the Pilot's Grill so we can keep the topic open.
|
|