Jump to content
MaidenFan

Avroliner at the org

Recommended Posts

Does anybody have it. How is it? Worth buying?

I think so. It's got some amazing features that are very compelling. The biggest ones that stand out to me:

The RJ100 also includes an accurate flight model, stall speeds, cruise speeds.

Tear the skies up, dude!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have it. How is it? Worth buying?

I think so. It's got some amazing features that are very compelling. The biggest ones that stand out to me:

The RJ100 also includes an accurate flight model, stall speeds, cruise speeds.

Tear the skies up, dude!

What it has accurate stall speeds! A top quality bird.

Ending the sarcasm, I would definitely by it if it had a 3d cockpit but have a look at this xplane 10 vid.

I know its old but it has the WIP MD80 by XPFW and the airport terminal system to prove its genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody able to compare it to the impressive AN-148 FREEWARE? I believe that too has accurate speeds and working landing gear, and a pretty good 3d pit  ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The price is twice too much, for the reasonable price to quality ratio. Also it looks "too generic" for me, though someone else may enjoy it. You'll never know :)

Not X-Plane, but that was the best Avroliner I know so far, and the first plane I couldn't start up without reading the manual:

http://www.baepanelproject.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Cessna 152 is a better investment than the Avro.  I still think the Avro is an okay buy.  When I buy payware, I look at my purchase as an investment in the creator and not just a one time purchase.  There are a lot of things Andreas could have done better with the RJ100, but I'm willing to "invest" in Andreas so he can continue working on his projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have it. How is it? Worth buying?

I think so. It's got some amazing features that are very compelling. The biggest ones that stand out to me:

The RJ100 also includes an accurate flight model, stall speeds, cruise speeds.

Tear the skies up, dude!

LOL! Cameron you're great! You should be a stand up comedian!  ;D Always good to get a nice laugh when I log into X-Pilot. Rush, the 152 is very worth it! I love it and it flies quite accurately, and Airbus is still updating it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Cessna 152 is a better investment than the Avro.  I still think the Avro is an okay buy.  When I buy payware, I look at my purchase as an investment in the creator and not just a one time purchase.  There are a lot of things Andreas could have done better with the RJ100, but I'm willing to "invest" in Andreas so he can continue working on his projects.

Thank you Steven, for bringing the world one step closer to that which we all desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting the 152 this weekend when I'll have time to fly it. I'd rather support X-Aviation anyway, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the feedback guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody able to compare it to the impressive AN-148 FREEWARE? I believe that too has accurate speeds and working landing gear, and a pretty good 3d pit  ;D

In my opinion, the An-148 is a much more polished product at this point. The RJ is very much a work in progress and while the new 3D model is quite good, the 2D panel needs work and there are definite performance issues and not muchl documentation. However, I do take Steven's point that it's an investment in the future and in that sense the RJ is worth supporting.

I've always hated the term "payware quality" and the Antonov illustrates my point. The amount one pays for something doesn't guarantee a level of "quality" higher than something you can get for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always hated the term "payware quality" and the Antonov illustrates my point. The amount one pays for something doesn't guarantee a level of "quality" higher than something you can get for free.

No, but it should majority of the time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "new" Fokker F27 freeware at the ORG is a worthwhile effort to check out this weekend too, but I'd have to concur: if you want a "new" file try the 152. Of course, keep some room in the budget for the Saab and, presumably, the CRJ too, and maybe some new California ortho-sceneries!? Anyway... I haven't seen enough in the way of cockpit improvement to justify the Avro yet. Just my opinion, but when a designer puts his or her development efforts into a 3D exterior at the expense of an updated panel I kind of feel priorities have been confused. The freeware Avro was good enough for what it was in that respect, but why pay for a freeware panel? The x737 took this route, but then again... it's still free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can also be developer preference. I know lots of people (Myself included in some cases) that just loathe 3d cockpits due to monitor size, functionality or whatever reason. A 2d pit does not mean that considerable work has not gone into it and what it represents. Good cases are the x737 and the QPAC A320. I would consider both of those aircraft "Payware Quality". Again, In my opinion, a good 3d pit in a plane with poor flight model and systems models and a so so exterior make me think that the developers priorities have been confused. (And to further add weight to my point, I am in ground school on the 737 right now and having the X737 experience has helped me immensely. If Ben and Pierre had (Do I dare to say Wasted?) their time on a 3d pit at the expense of the systems I would personally be worse off and the plane would be nowhere near as fun to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I LOVE 2D cockpits.  Only recently, because of the Sundowner, have I started flying with 3D.  I am still mostly in 2D mode.  I sure hope you developer/designer guys keep doing 2D as well as making 3D easier to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "new" Fokker F27 freeware at the ORG is a worthwhile effort to check out this weekend too, but I'd have to concur: if you want a "new" file try the 152. Of course, keep some room in the budget for the Saab and, presumably, the CRJ too, and maybe some new California ortho-sceneries!? Anyway... I haven't seen enough in the way of cockpit improvement to justify the Avro yet. Just my opinion, but when a designer puts his or her development efforts into a 3D exterior at the expense of an updated panel I kind of feel priorities have been confused. The freeware Avro was good enough for what it was in that respect, but why pay for a freeware panel? The x737 took this route, but then again... it's still free.

Do you happen to have a link for the Fokker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YYZ: with all due respect please re-read the sentence in question. I used "updated panel", not 3D, but again, from what little I've seen of the file since it went payware I'm just not sure it would be a high priority purchase for me. I liked the old version(s) just fine and still enjoy them "as is". Curious, though, that the next version of the x737 will be 3D. Do you feel that will detract from the file? Or that XPJ should make their new 777 with a 2D cockpit?

Good luck with school, by the way. Lot of long nights ahead studying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chip,

You are absolutely correct and my apologies for the mis read. I feel I need to clarify my position a little bit with regards to 3d cockpits. It is my belief that 3d cockpits are a valuable and nifty experience for flying, however when descending or taking off from an airport (especially on vatsim with ATC and vectors with lots of changes) if the 3d cockpit is not designed to function well as a 2d pit then the pilot is for all intents and purposes... screwed. For one I find popping around the cockpit to find and read switches and values, especially the autopilot is a major inconvenience. It's all about the design. If I can easily access everything when in "2d" mode and read it all and manipulate everything I need for critical phases of flight then I don't see the need for a proper 2d pit. If however (and one can't help but mention the ERJ here) I need to constantly be shifting views to fly in 2d mode then it does not work.

So in response to your question, I don't really know if the 3d cockpit will detract from the x737. It depends on how easy it is to fly in 2d or 3d mode. All I ask is that if you are in 2d mode that you will be able to see everything that you need to fly, and be able to read it without zooming in or shifting views. If I can't easily fly the plane then I won't spend much time with it, no matter how good the systems are. This is why a 2d pit in my mind is always a safe bet.

I think it would be perfect if all aircraft had both a 2d and a 3d panel, so that everyone can fly as they prefer, and I can enjoy the 3d pit in cruise, and when things get busy pop back to the 2d pit for the quick changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YYZ:

I couldn't agree more. So many 2D cockpits open up with, or so it seems, the panel cut off in mid-arti-horizon & with no way to read needed flight data without panning down, and that's why the x737 works so well for a 2D panel (at least for me), and why Peter's A-380 remains a favorite (indeed, all his Airbus models are just excellent). Even the "new" F27 has the dreaded bifurcated 2D panel however. I flew Tom's MU-2 forever in 2D mode just for the reasons you mention, too. Too busy to fiddle with mouse movements. Maybe something like velocity sensitive panning while in 3D mode would help...slow mouse movements might produce very little panning while quicker movements might jump you around further. Who knows, but the current system has real limitations. Simon uses the TrackIR system, which seems ideal in some respects (ignoring its not Mac compatible!), but manipulator use in 3D sometimes drives me batty, too.

Well, I may have to buy the Avro just to see what all the fuss is about!

Later

C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion chaps. Ha, Trackir makes things even worse, wobbly head view + fiddling mouse for that perfectly rendered and shaded OBS can be problematic! Have to admit my best instrument flying experiences have been in the x737.....or the Falco! Although the controls are in 3d, they are so clearly presented and the actuation points spot on.

3d is the future, but needs careful design, as yeah, controls should be quickly and accurately adjusted without swearing ("I want to change decimals!!!) That's why I'm personally disappointed in the EFIS app, it's missing a raft of controls, instead having a plethora of info displayed. If that can be corrected, then 3d pit control would be more standardized - for IPad owners at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×