Chipmunk released

[stiz]

Firstly, sorry Roger, but i'm going to reply, i can take this sat down.

YoYo, i think you've missed the point i was making on the weathering. Non of those planes you linked to show the streaks over the fuse etc, weathering yes, but no over the top streaks. Also dont confuse wrinkles in the aircraft skin with streaks.

I'm think too than it isnt polite than the one developer (are You author of Avro "Anson" Aircraft Factory line from A2A - Im right? Did You forget about Service pack? P3Dv2 lights problems, gap around the turret ect?) did a post like this to other developer. It's a kind of ethics and cooperation I suppose.

It states quite clearly on the product page for the anson "NOTE:This aircraft is built for Microsoft Flight Simulator X" nowhere does it mention it will work, or is intended to work, in P3d. Any issues with the lights is a P3d issues and should be taken up with them (allthough i belive its already fixed in the next p3d format). Its also worth noting that aircraft for P3d ARE for a different sim and fall under difference licenses. Their so totaly different that native P3d aircraft wont work properly in FSX. Gap around the turret was fixed in SP1.

AH never was a top class of Dev in Sim Market like f.ex. PMDG, VRS ect - thats true, but If You buy Ford Focus dont expect quality of Rolls-Royce Motor Car. Yes, that's true too and You seen it before: the price, this explains a lot. It wasnt a project with budget of 100.000$.

As for dev to dev talk, i'm all for it. If baz wants to purchase my plane and give feedback on a forum about it (like i did with this chippie) then he's more than welcome to, its his right and i'd be all for it. You cant improve if all you hear is "its fantastic!!". As for price, the intro price makes it the same price as the anson, after that ends its more expensive. So its not like i'm picking on devs who charge less . Also for the Anson, i had a huge budget of £0.00 and still managed to do it. ...

For the record, i did look for a chipmunk forum at JF support, but didnt see one, just a release thread. And as i know both Bazzar and Martyn are members here, and this place being willing to give devs time to respond and improve before screaming for their blood, posted it here... sorry some of you folks got your nickers in a twist, this place used to more robust.

[wombat666]

On a general note, AH has never purported to be a "PMDG" or any body else. We are who we are - passionate FS enthusiasts who produce stuff as quickly and as efficiently as we can. Personally I could not stand a business where it takes 4 years to develop anything.We have produced around 11 projects over the last 18 months including the JF DC8 series with 11 different models and 4 VC cockpits. We enjoy our association with JF because they are nice people to work with(OK they are just nice people)and have principles much aligned to mine. We have worked together for while now and have what might be called a robust relationship . In fact a certain poster here was 12 years old when we began working together.
I have never and never will comment on any other developer's work other than to compliment them on their choice of subject or a difficult challenge overcome. It is my personal opinion that to do so would be unethical and if professionally engaged (ie for money) unprofessional.
Anyway, thank you for all the comment and rest assured I do take it on board. As with all JF/AH product, patches and upgrades will flow I can promise you that.
Enjoy the Chippie please, it was a pleasure to make.

Spoken as one would expect of a true 'Gentleman' mate.
I am extremely thankful that you are not attempting to compete with the likes of PMDG or A2A, while the anal retentive get their enjoyment from such highly involved products, many of us are more than happy to get hold of interesting and attractive aircraft where we can kick the tyres, light the fires, and get airborne...................without having to spend half our flight time doing pre-flight checks ad infinitum!
We have a choice and we are bloody lucky to have one, so whatever floats you're boat is always a plus.
I doubt stitz intended his critique to be mean spirited or malicious, however (and there's always one) it would have been 'diplomatic' to have aired his views in private, but that's my own personal opinion.
We've all found ourselves less than happy with the occasional release of an aircraft that has been touted as being the Duck's Nuts, but that's a fact of life, be it VR or RL.
Obviously I'm delighted with the availability of many of the 'Classics' that we have for FSX, and I would appreciate it if you would just get on with the later DC8 series!!!
I fly the virtual skies for pleasure, so while I might be regarded as a proletarian, I enjoy aircraft from developers such as you lot, Albeo and Carenado to name a few, and to be honest, I still fly FS9 because the AH Spitfire collection was one of the very first commercial additions I purchased and I still get a buzz out of flying them.
Just keep on keeping on to your usual high standard, I like the Chipmunk, it fits my philosophy, despite the odd minor glitch which I expect will be sorted in due course.


And a PS: Frankly, a current generation 'Ford Focus' beats a 'Rolls Royce' in the bang for your buck stakes.

[falcon409]

Spoken as one would expect of a true 'Gentleman' mate.
I am extremely thankful that you are not attempting to compete with the likes of PMDG or A2A, while the anal retentive get their enjoyment from such highly involved products, many of us are more than happy to get hold of interesting and attractive aircraft where we can kick the tyres, light the fires, and get airborne...................without having to spend half our flight time doing pre-flight checks ad infinitum!
We have a choice and we are bloody lucky to have one, so whatever floats you're boat is always a plus.
I doubt stitz intended his critique to be mean spirited or malicious, however (and there's always one) it would have been 'diplomatic' to have aired his views in private, but that's my own personal opinion.
We've all found ourselves less than happy with the occasional release of an aircraft that has been touted as being the Duck's Nuts, but that's a fact of life, be it VR or RL.
Obviously I'm delighted with the availability of many of the 'Classics' that we have for FSX, and I would appreciate it if you would just get on with the later DC8 series!!!
I fly the virtual skies for pleasure, so while I might be regarded as a proletarian, I enjoy aircraft from developers such as you lot, Albeo and Carenado to name a few, and to be honest, I still fly FS9 because the AH Spitfire collection was one of the very first commercial additions I purchased and I still get a buzz out of flying them.
Just keep on keeping on to your usual high standard, I like the Chipmunk, it fits my philosophy, despite the odd minor glitch which I expect will be sorted in due course.


And a PS: Frankly, a current generation 'Ford Focus' beats a 'Rolls Royce' in the bang for your buck stakes.

Well said Wombat. I think there are a lot of us that feel just as you do about the type of aircraft we're comfortable with. I also found the Chipmunk to be an excellent product right out of the box despite, as you mention, the odd glitch.

[teeboy]

Have to agree with Wombat and Falcon here. I love A2A and PMDG products but dont necessarily want all the rigmarole that goes with them. Havent bought this (yet) but the price and it being the aircraft I had my first powered flying experiences in are swaying me.

Stiz mentioned a lot of things I hadnt noticed from studying screenshots and it sounds like many will be looked at. I also though the developers response was positive. Could have been handled more privately perhaps - there has been enough bashing going on in these forums of late.

[dvj]

I can't believe I wasted 20 minutes of my life trying to put together some logic to any of this thread. I'm going flying.

[Geomitrak]

We've all found ourselves less than happy with the occasional release of an aircraft that has been touted as being the Duck's Nuts, but that's a fact of life, be it VR or RL.

Yes, but it need not be 'a fact of life ' if fair and objective criticism is openly allowed, and can be read by prospective purchasers. I've seen a lot of people who post complaints about add-ons they have bought, rebuffed by others who say they should have researched the add-on before parting with their cash. How are they to do that research if criticism is stifled, and faults are only discussed behind closed doors ?

It's payware - its a product that you pay money for. Why shouldn't you express an opinion about it, and why should faults be concealed from others who are thinking of buying it ?

[Roger]

Can we please...stay on topic.

[SeanTK]

Looks like a fantastic aircraft.

I'll definitely consider purchasing it, and the reviews in this forum have been extremely valuable in making a decision. The critiques in this thread seemingly have been helpful for developers (so they know what to fix) and for prospective customers (so they know what they're purchasing), which I think is in line with SOH's motto.

So...serious question: Are customers allowed to post issues and/or critiques of addons at SOH? Yes or no?

If not, it should be clearly stated that any and all issues that a forum member identifies with any addon should not be posted publicly, and that the member should refrain from posting, or post only praise for the addon/author.

Again, the details screenshots and commentary here have been very helpful in coming to a purchase/not purchase decision, and have provided me full awareness of what I would be getting into after spending my money, as I prefer to be an educated consumer and not be surprised.

[noddy]

Well not had a chance at all to try this out, hopefully tomorrow will see me take to the air. From shots posted it looks a fine model, so thank you JF for it.

[falcon409]

Well not had a chance at all to try this out, hopefully tomorrow will see me take to the air. From shots posted it looks a fine model, so thank you JF for it.

There is really a fine line between posting issues and critiquing a new release. In my opinion, if you have "issues" with a product that require (most likely) adjustments/reworking of a model then those things should be sent directly to the developer either thru an e-mail presentation of your findings or a customer service ticket if the site has such a thing. SOH is not Customer Service for newly released products. Yes the developers frequent the forums and will answer concerns, but they would probably appreciate that information coming directly to them rather than finding it by chance in these forums. This is partly why some threads get quite volitile and then locked. You have opposing views on what is acceptable and what is not, you have those who will side with the developers and take issue with concerns that they see as needless or nitpicking and you have the other side who have standards they expect to be met if they're going to pay good money for a product. It rarely ends with hugs all around.

Critiques can be constructive if presented in a friendly manner, "The specular seems a bit off. . .is it me or is that the way it should be?". . . ."Shouldn't that stripe match top to bottom or were they offset like that on the actual aircraft?". . . ."I don't think the sounds are quite right can this be fixed?" Those may seem like stupid examples, but simply put there is a difference between the two and of the two, critiques can be much less "anger inducing" if done in a friendly atmosphere. Issues, on the other hand need to be handled directly with the developer, not here. IMHO

[Killbilly]

There is really a fine line between posting issues and critiquing a new release. In my opinion, if you have "issues" with a product that require (most likely) adjustments/reworking of a model then those things should be sent directly to the developer either thru an e-mail presentation of your findings or a customer service ticket if the site has such a thing. SOH is not Customer Service for newly released products. Yes the developers frequent the forums and will answer concerns, but they would probably appreciate that information coming directly to them rather than finding it by chance in these forums. This is partly why some threads get quite volitile and then locked. You have opposing views on what is acceptable and what is not, you have those who will side with the developers and take issue with concerns that they see as needless or nitpicking and you have the other side who have standards they expect to be met if they're going to pay good money for a product. It rarely ends with hugs all around.

Critiques can be constructive if presented in a friendly manner, "The specular seems a bit off. . .is it me or is that the way it should be?". . . ."Shouldn't that stripe match top to bottom or were they offset like that on the actual aircraft?". . . ."I don't think the sounds are quite right can this be fixed?" Those may seem like stupid examples, but simply put there is a difference between the two and of the two, critiques can be much less "anger inducing" if done in a friendly atmosphere. Issues, on the other hand need to be handled directly with the developer, not here. IMHO

Very, very well said. Thank you.

[Bruce Thompson]

Very well put Ed, I agree with what you are saying.

Regards

Bruce.

[Roger]

Looks like a fantastic aircraft.

I'll definitely consider purchasing it, and the reviews in this forum have been extremely valuable in making a decision. The critiques in this thread seemingly have been helpful for developers (so they know what to fix) and for prospective customers (so they know what they're purchasing), which I think is in line with SOH's motto.

So...serious question: Are customers allowed to post issues and/or critiques of addons at SOH? Yes or no?

If not, it should be clearly stated that any and all issues that a forum member identifies with any addon should not be posted publicly, and that the member should refrain from posting, or post only praise for the addon/author.

Again, the details screenshots and commentary here have been very helpful in coming to a purchase/not purchase decision, and have provided me full awareness of what I would be getting into after spending my money, as I prefer to be an educated consumer and not be surprised.

Sean it isn't hard. The major critique came from a develper from another design house. That is bad form...not cricket one might say when it isn't posted on the developer's support forum but posted here. Then a flurry of posts either saying they have God given rights to critique all they want and others saying they disagree. In the meanwhile the original topic disappears.

[T6flyer]

Sincerely hope that I put my points across nicely?

Already am helping as much as I can and will do all that I can to assist with the points that I (and others) have raised here and more importantly on the Just Flight Forum. After all, we all want something that flies like the real thing and I can sincerely relate to how much work Bazaar and his team have put into this project, having been involved in over 25 FS2004 aeroplanes myself. It's not an easy task at all and they have my fullest support, not wanting of course someone like me, saying that thats wrong or incorrect Depending on your background or flying experience, the Chipmunk has played an important part in our lives (for most of us in the UK, it was our first experience of actual flight, sadly mine was a 150) and it is a truly historic aeroplane.

Lets all look forward to the future!

Thanks,

Martin

[Bomber_12th]

More Chippie shots:

[Bomber_12th]

[JimmyRFR]

Finally got a chance to try this one out tonight; very pleased. Definitely a decent value for the price.

There's a probably a bit of nitpicking that can be done sure, but not enough to spoil my enjoyment. For some reason, it seems the bubble canopy has the center post in the front when viewed from the VC, but not when viewed from the outside? Is this actually an issue, or do I have some sort of a mixed up install? I only ask since everything else seems to have been brought up already...

Regardless, a very worthwhile addition to my collection. I have a soft spot for anything DHC related, so I'm very happy to have the Chippie in my FSX install!

[bazzar]

Hi all,

A major patch/upgrade is on the way. Repainters please note that there will be a substantial change to the paintkit so please hold off any significant paints for the meantime. Thanks.

[Dumonceau]

Hi all,

A major patch/upgrade is on the way. Repainters please note that there will be a substantial change to the paintkit so please hold off any significant paints for the meantime. Thanks.

You da man!!

Now lets hope this can stop all the criticism and enable us to focus on the enjoyment of this wonderful little bird!!

Dumonceau

[spatialpro]

John, are those shots in FSX?

Andy

[Bomber_12th]

Andy, they are, though with a little touch of 'post-production' contrast added. The base scenery is FTX Global, flying around the ORBX freeware EDBH Barth airport, and the sky and clouds are my current REX Essential favorites (Cumulus 29, Day Set: Exact). With this sky/cloud combination, there is also a lot of shadow contrast present, and this isn't with any other addon 'shade' program.

I was looking through some old Warbirds International magazines last night and just happened to come across an article about Chipmunk G-AKDN, the one featured in my last screenshots. As it turns out, it is the oldest Chipmunk flying in the world today, having been the 11th manufactured in Canada, built in 1947, and one of three which were shipped to the UK to help launch the start of production there. It is presently based in Canada.

[T6flyer]

Andy, they are, though with a little touch of 'post-production' contrast added. The base scenery is FTX Global, flying around the ORBX freeware EDBH Barth airport, and the sky and clouds are my current REX Essential favorites (Cumulus 29, Day Set: Exact). With this sky/cloud combination, there is also a lot of shadow contrast present, and this isn't with any other addon 'shade' program.

I was looking through some old Warbirds International magazines last night and just happened to come across an article about Chipmunk G-AKDN, the one featured in my last screenshots. As it turns out, it is the oldest Chipmunk flying in the world today, having been the 11th manufactured in Canada, built in 1947, and one of three which were shipped to the UK to help launch the start of production there. It is presently based in Canada.

This may be of interest as to AKDN, taken from a copy of Sports Aviation:



Cheers,

Martin

[Bomber_12th]

Very cool, thanks Martin! Just that little write-up helps to highlight the production changes/differences in the Chipmunk line. G-AKDN sounds like other early/prototype aircraft I'm familiar with, that are unique due to which development updates they either did or didn't receive.

Baz, it's very commendable of you to continue to put time into these aircraft to provide us an update - I look forward to seeing how you can make these even better than they already are! And as you recommend, I'll be holding off attempting any repaints until after the update is released. A huge variety of repaints come to mind for these models.