The horse is dead guys...It's been flailed several times in the last week!

I'd like to see a couple screenshots of the Citation virtual cockpit that aren't resized for the forum, preferably in BMP. Anyone willing to e-mail me a couple? If so, toss me a PM.

If you like it, buy it.If you don't' refund it.Otherwise, hit the road.Eaglesoftdg is one of the finest developers for FSX that I have encountered. I'm sure many, many silent purchasers agree.Mark

This one is for Ron...I just got a new rig and have spent the last 2 days reinstalling all my stuff.For some reason I can't find the fsx version 1 of this plane that I purchased on your website-am I just dense or did you overwrite it with the new one?Thanks for any help.

This one is for Ron...I just got a new rig and have spent the last 2 days reinstalling all my stuff.For some reason I can't find the fsx version 1 of this plane that I purchased on your website-am I just dense or did you overwrite it with the new one?Thanks for any help.

Geof, thanks for the request. It brought the fact that the site has broken links to my attention.I'm toast this evening so the best I can do is by lunch tommorow.I would have gladly "comped" you and Jeremy on the new but would be accused of "pandering" to the authorities. :( Check your email for temporary link to the FSX CX V1.0...

Geof, thanks for the request. It brought the fact that the site has broken links to my attention.I'm toast this evening so the best I can do is by lunch tommorow.I would have gladly "comped" you and Jeremy on the new but would be accused of "pandering" to the authorities. :( Check your email for temporary link to the FSX CX V1.0...

Thanks Ron for the link. No pandering allowed but I already spent more money tonight eating out with my wife than a typical fs add on-I think about this every time I eat out-especially when tonight it wasn't such a great experience and it really seems to be a hit or miss affair.

Thanks Ron for the link. No pandering allowed but I already spent more money tonight eating out with my wife than a typical fs add on-I think about this every time I eat out-especially when tonight it wasn't such a great experience and it really seems to be a hit or miss affair.

I know Geof, you know me better than that anyway.I hear 'ya. The Missus and I went a few days ago and she could hardly believe the check.Heard about it all the way home...had it been spent on an addon I could have enjoyed for years to come. Didn't bother to tell her that since she wouldn't understand anyway, they never do. :(

The horse is dead guys...It's been flailed several times in the last week!

Haha, they'll keep flogging until splashed with blood and guts then perhaps run out of steam...Funny part of it is that few floggers own it and and even fewer care one way or the other. To them it's just sport. :(

I know Geof, you know me better than that anyway.I hear 'ya. The Missus and I went a few days ago and she could hardly believe the check.Heard about it all the way home...had it been spent on an addon I could have enjoyed for years to come. Didn't bother to tell her that since she wouldn't understand anyway, they never do. :(

I'm waiting for someone to compare the price of a good hooker and an fs addon to make the OT hijacking here truly complete. :( Sure seems to me that someone here is trying to paper over and bury any real discussion of the product's merits and shortcomings. The comparison of the ES virtual cockpit and the FeelThere one is a red herring IMHO. What I want to know is how does it compare to the real cutting edge FSX VC panels (PMDG J41, Lotus L-39, Flight1 Mustang)? The FT product isn't anything even close to a benchmark. How does this product compare to cutting-edge products priced near this one?For the record, in FSX, FSUIPC actually uses the SimConnect interface for (among other things) accessing the throttle position. So a requirement for the FSUIPC registered version to access throttle position data should not be needed in FSX...FSUIPC is only accessing the exact same data freely available via SimConnect--just indirectly. I suspect this is mostly done as a convenience for the programmer, who wanted to use the same interface in both the FS9 and FSX versions. That convenience is borne at the expense of the user, even though the FSX version is sold as a separate product, ostensibly because FSX-specific techniques are being used instead of just porting FS9 code over.Anyway, I'm interested in peoples' independent opinions as to how the VC compares to state-of-the-art panels in form and function. I can make my own value judgements as to what's possible or not, and whether what's there is not worth ESDG's hefty asking price.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V Colorado Springs, CO

Well Bob, according to some here our product doesn't hold a candle to the products you mention so it wouldn't interest you at all.The FSUIPC requirement is there in our code regardless of your opinion. You didn't write it we did, so the argument is moot.Woulda, shoulda, couldas, don't count unless you are writing it. :( The products merits and shortcomings are as open and transparent as can be done so its hard to see a "paper over" or attempt to "bury" job but imagine what you will.While the form may not be to your liking the function stands up against the best out there.Suggest you take a pass unless you feel it's "worth the price". :(

I have read every post here and I just cannot believe some of what I have read. This is the WORSE developer participation in a thread that I have ever read! Some posts were downright rude and totally uncalled for by Eaglesoft and in almost every instance of criticism the poster was labeled venomous, vile, or rude! And just because a person does not own your product doesn't make the point stated moot and it definitely DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT! Have you forgotten that this is the Avsim Forums? In fact you guys have your own forums but the criticism (constructive or not) ends up here because as you say you won't tolerate it on your own forum. Please stop trying to be the almighty of people's opinions. When someone speaks and say's something you do not agree with you put that person down, you flame them, call them a pirate, etc. I just cannot understand how your personal attacks on Avsim forum members is allowed.

At the end of the day, we are sim enthusiasts and people with ideas and emotions just as you are. Wearing a developer hat doesn't change those facts.

True to a certain degree but wearing a developer hat IMHO you would be more careful not to publicly make a statement that might offend current or potential customers. In other words it seems like you guys would have more discretion and care in your forum responses.

Hardly an argument huh Squirrel? In our view, we would rather folks take a refund option than be forced to own something they neither want or need. Big Grin.gifThe CXE V2.0 does indeed meet the needs of a lot of others because they tell us so. They just happen to be the quiet ones who are enjoying her. Big Grin.gifThey don't participate here because they already know the agendas of those who wish to run threads OT.Sorry but you seem to be in the minority on this one. Big Grin.gif

So what you're saying is the minority don't count? You state that the happy ones are silent. Don't you think that there may be more who are unhappy but also remain silent? Some people are just more verbal but that doesn't mean they are the minority. Also it was Eaglesoft who indeed first ran this thread OT by posting messages about rides in real world planes and such. As another poster said in this thread, it did look a little like you were trying to change the conversation.

These projects have our blood sweat and tears in them and to have them slagged for sport by a few is pretty disheartening at times.

Why is negative criticism considered "slagged for sport"? You guys really want to suppress ALL negative criticism even if it's true and what you have publicly stated is "if you don't own it then don't comment because we don't want to hear it! Eaglesoft that kind of attitude is truly sad.Now I'm sure you Eaglesoft guys will respond (in defense) and flame broil me because I didn't state anything above that's constructive to this thread so now I will state something on-topic and constructive. How you take it is another matter.Some people have reported that the VC looks bad, terrible, cartoony, FS2004 like. From the screenshots IMHO the VC cockpit does not look terrible or bad. What I do see is that is looks exactly like the VC from the CX version 1.Here's a challenge. Show us comparison VC screenshots from the first Citation X and the latest CX v2 and also show us screenshots from the VC of the Cessna 172 from FS2004, and FSX. You may think that this is a moot point but it isn't as I believe it will show what people are really complaining about. You improved the systems modeling (and I applaud and commend you for that) on the current version but the VC appears to have stayed the same. Now in your defense maybe version 1 of the CX was graphically ahead of its time!Todd

It's like a broken record around here. Developers - lighten upMembers - stop piling onWe'll close this circus down for now.*CLOSED*