FSX
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
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
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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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.Originally Posted by simkid22
:ernae:
J.J.
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.
"If three-holers are gas guzzlers, why are there four-holers now???"
"But what do i know? I'm just the 800 pound guerrilla in the room."
Fire! Fire! Your pants better not be on fire....
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
Humble Poly bender and warrior of Vertices
Alienware Console i7 3770 CPU 3.40 GHz / 16 Gigs of RAM / GTX660 GC w/2 Gigs of VRAM / Windows 7 64 Ultimate
Running 3X Samsung 840 SSD HD's, 200 Gig each, 500/500 Read/Write
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...
Not bad if you haven't already bought it at simmarket for $44!
Just as well I haven't! :isadizzy:
yea, i know, but i just thought i might let people know.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...
i agree, i wish companys would finish there products before release.
"If three-holers are gas guzzlers, why are there four-holers now???"
"But what do i know? I'm just the 800 pound guerrilla in the room."
Fire! Fire! Your pants better not be on fire....
"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.
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!
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.
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.
Humble Poly bender and warrior of Vertices
Alienware Console i7 3770 CPU 3.40 GHz / 16 Gigs of RAM / GTX660 GC w/2 Gigs of VRAM / Windows 7 64 Ultimate
Running 3X Samsung 840 SSD HD's, 200 Gig each, 500/500 Read/Write
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
: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.
AMD FX 8-Core Black 4.2Ghz, 8G Ram 2TB HD, W8.1 pending W10, ATI R5 2G X2 Crossfire
http://www.canadianarcticfse.com/
Simkid, I respectfully request that you read this thread addressing ths very topic.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...914#post280914
.....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?
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.
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
I'd still love some VC pictures, guys. Please?
Must be the VC is just so bad no one can get a picture of it?
David
Price drop, only $28 at their website:
http://www.area51sim.com/galaxy.html
c'mon, someone has it. I can't find more screenies anywhere.
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.
Tomorrow's payday, so I'll probably pick it up and post some shots then if no one else has.
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!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
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
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.
Members who have read this thread: 1
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks