What do you think of STMA?

[simbabeat]

Hi guys,

I was just wondering what you guys thought of STMA. It seems that all I hear is praise for them but I was looking at some screens of there stuff and I was a little turned off.  In their brand new "State of the Art" U-2 Dragon Lady, there is clearly a default 2D FMS texture in the "3D Cockpit."

Look here:

Looking over their brand new PC-12, I see a default 2D FMS and two Garmin 430's plastered into that 3d cockpit.  Now that just looks ugly.

So to me, this lack of quality really turns me off. I'm a real big time GA guy and they make a lot of GA.

Is their stuff good and worth getting?  I'd like your opinions.

[steven winslow]

I agree that STMA's textures need a lot of work, but I like the way they fly.  I have the Beaver, the Cubs, the PC-12 and some others.  They aren't the prettiest, but they are fun to fly.

[dpny]

STMA's business is building aircraft for commercial simulation. They also build planes for X-Plane, but it's not their main business. That said, STMA planes are fantastic for their fidelity to actual flight models. Eye candy is secondary. They also make some nods to the fact that people who use X-Plane don't always want to fly the planes are they are flown in real life, which is why you see the standard X-Plane FMC in the U-2 cockpit, where it definitely doesn't belong.

You buy STMA because you want the thing to checklist and handle like it does in real life (or as close as unclassified docs will allow, as in the case with the U-2). Their PC-12 is frustratingly accurate: it took me a while to get my head around the plane's autopilot.

[Dozer]

The stock Garmin 430 blights all of my favourite payware aircraft - in no particular order the Duchess, Falco, MU-2, BK-117... worst is when I'm obliged to use it to set NAV1 and COM1! The BK117 has two, and no ADF, so I have to use it for all my radio navigation!

edit: the Falco scores major bonus points for modelling the GNS430's power switch, so at least I can turn it off and fly with NAV2...

[TedG]

Hi,

Having formally reviewed the STMA PC-12/47 for AVSIM and also owning the excellent A1-A Husky bush plane the praise you hear is well deserved.

While the PC-12 may be graphically a mixed bag in certain respects the flight modelling and procedural aspects of the model make the plane a joy to fly-not to mention they include loads of extra's such as multiple skins, interiors, STMA pushback tug, hangars etc. It is currently my number one XP model to fly around in.

The Husky is cleaner from a graphics standpoint and the flight model is pure fun if you like bush planes.

Support is also very responsive-but you won't need it as the aircraft work great out of the box as it were.

I have no reservation recommending thier products. Great value for money. I wish they would come out with a DH-6 Twin Otter already!

Even Carenado uses slightly tweaked default Garmin 430's and while a slight improvement over standard they are still rubbish-never mind the psuedo FMC. I just ignore the thing under most circumstances.

p.s. The autopilot used with the PC-12 can be a learning curve if used to mainly VNAV/LNAV "push butan" jet type AP's. Sim pilots have similar issues learning prop airliner AP's such as those used in the ATR72-500 and the lack of actual VNAV can be confusing at first.

[He who is not welcome!]

I can understand why the question is being asked here.

When I read Ted's AVSIM review I thought "what!.... those VC textures really look poor.  I've seen a lot of freeware that achieves a higher texturing quality".     When I then saw the quality of textures in some other X-Plane addons like the FJS Dash 8 and the CRJ, it again highlighted how poor some of the texturing is in the Shade Tree PC-12.

But I then bought it ........ and I love it!   It really flys nice and is more immersive in the VC, than the screenshots suggest.

I do certainly hope they improve their texturing, but equally I don't regret buying the PC-12.

[Jack Skieczius]

And that comes down to the problem for us developers, and that is that most people will buy a product only because it looks good. This is not really a problem for developers who can make planes look good. And I am one of those who, in the past only bought planes because they looked good. I for one wants to feel immersed in the simulation. Some of those good looking planes had some pretty horrible flight models, for instance just about all of the CaptainSim planes I have flow. But they looked so good!

For the most part, the planes have have been produced in the past year to 2 years have been good looking. Not all of them, but X-Plane is changing, we have better artist and better enthusiast all around.

[LA]

And that comes down to the problem for us developers, and that is that most people will buy a product only because it looks good. This is not really a problem for developers who can make planes look good. And I am one of those who, in the past only bought planes because they looked good. I for one wants to feel immersed in the simulation. Some of those good looking planes had some pretty horrible flight models, for instance just about all of the CaptainSim planes I have flow. But they looked so good!

For the most part, the planes have have been produced in the past year to 2 years have been good looking. Not all of them, but X-Plane is changing, we have better artist and better enthusiast all around.

Would I buy the aircraft in question? No. I'm into good graphics as well as flight dynamics. And X-Plane is capable of both. I have bought Captain sim for looks. One was just the exterior shell. It's kind of like owning a fine painting. IMO, the graphics of this particular plane fall far short of what's available these days. Simple interiors won't cut it anymore, if X-plane wants to go for a larger share of the market...........which of course it does.

LA

[Dozer]

Well, what is needed is a better system of reviews. More thorough reviews, and independent. Where the reviewer can highlight the strengths of the model where they're not obvious from the screenshots. A bit like what the xplane10 blog does.

[simbabeat]

Thanks for your opinions guys!

I am a big flight model guy.  I tend to stay away from acf's that are not accurate.  However, I will not fly an unpainted planemaker model even if it is perfect flight model.  Ok, bad analogy but my point is I think x-plane has gotten to a point where it has to be graphically strong along with a good flight model to be a good .acf.

I want to buy the PC-12 but no matter how good people say it is and no matter how close to the checklist it is, I prefer my payware to be very graphically strong.  I do not own the PC-12 but to me it seems like it is a payware flight model and a freeware cockpit.  I need to two out of two to be a customer.

Just my two cents...

[hobofat]

Well, what is needed is a better system of reviews. More thorough reviews, and independent. Where the reviewer can highlight the strengths of the model where they're not obvious from the screenshots. A bit like what the xplane10 blog does.

This work?

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0411/ShadeTree/PC12.html

[Dozer]

Well, what is needed is a better system of reviews. More thorough reviews, and independent. Where the reviewer can highlight the strengths of the model where they're not obvious from the screenshots. A bit like what the xplane10 blog does.

This work?

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0411/ShadeTree/PC12.html

Yes, very much so. I'd rather like to buy the PC12 now, when I didn't before. From that review it seems the generic-texture 2d instruments are the low-point for that package by a considerable margin. The BK-117, Falco, Duchess etc have instilled a bias in me - when I see screenshots featuring characteristic generic textures, I assume the entire package has been made with the same (lack of) effort as the instrument textures. Clearly I am wrong!

I notice that Avsim still doesn't identify which simulator the aircraft is for on its aircraft review page. This is why I'd forgotten about Avsim - I don't want to wade through the many FSX reviews to find the handful of XP9 reviews. That said, it was an Avsim review (for the Mu-2) that brought me to X-Plane in the first place.

[TedG]

I notice that Avsim still doesn't identify which simulator the aircraft is for on its aircraft review page. This is why I'd forgotten about Avsim - I don't want to wade through the many FSX reviews to find the handful of XP9 reviews. That said, it was an Avsim review (for the Mu-2) that brought me to X-Plane in the first place.

Hi,

I am glad you found the PC-12 review helpful. While AVSIM remains primarily oriented towards FSX they are more than happy to provide reviews encompassing XP and other sims (a recently published review covered a train simulator!).

As a reviewer I am bound to provide an unbiased piece. I am constantly aware that others are making potential purchase decisions based on what they read and highlighting strengths AND weakness of a given product is paramount. Everyone who writes reviews for whatever organization does have a particular native slant in individual writing-personally while I do like impressive graphics I am far more concerned with an accurate flight model, the "fun and flyability" factor (immersive qualities I suppose), and estimated value for money. Not to mention I have a personal preference for flying prop aircraft.

**Edit**You can put a beautiful ribbon on a pile of dogshit...but in the end it remains tarted-up dogshit   ;D

Yes the STMA PC-12 is not graphically advanced and could use a bit of polish-BUT...and a big BUT....it is a terrific good-looking procedural model that is easily accessable by any XP pilot and loads of fun to fly-not to mention all the neat little extra features (including responsive and knowledgable support) chucked in that do make it...in my opinion...a great value for the money.

You won't go wrong with the Husky either by the way. For what-19 bucks or so you get wheels, floats, skis, tundra configs, a simple yet elegant VC, plenty of skins, the STMA tug/hangar plug-ins, checklister support, a really loud grumbly engine, and a flight model that will tempt you to shoehorn into teeny-tiny bush strips...and take off again! Great plane for flying the Tom Curtis scenery by the way.

Enough mini-reviews lol. And as a side note....I OWN the PC-12 and Husky...these were not "gratis" review copies. Not that it makes a difference to how I write a piece but as this thread is STMA-specific I thought I would mention it.

I have been posting notice of published XP-related reviews over at the org site-if there is no objection I will do the same here and provide the link to save you having to search cuz I'm sweet like that  .

Currently I have 3 X-Plane reviews underway-1 aircraft, 1 utility, and 1 scenery package. As each takes roughly 40 hours or so to pull together you'll be seeing the current batch appearing weekly-ish from around the first week of July.

Papa Mac...if you are reading this get off your duff and do two things:

-Sort out the yucky PC-12 EFIS controller garphics already and.....

-Build me a DH-6  ;D. The Aerosoft DH-6/FTX PNW scenery is one of the few reasons I have for keeping FSX on my system!

Cheers

Ted

[Jack Skieczius]

Talking about reviews, i was hoping to continue doing quality reviews over at my ArmchairAviation.com site, BUT, balancing reviews with aircraft development, development seems to take priority. I really believe quality reviews are important to the success of the X-Plane payware market. People right now don't have a clear view on what they are buying 90% of the time.

Someday, i think we will hire some people to write good reviews, or at least accept volunteers. Only time can tell.

[hobofat]

As each takes roughly 40 hours or so to pull together ...

One thing I've always liked about a lot of AVSIM reviews is that they clearly state the amount of time the reviewer has spent flying the aircraft.  I've seen 20 and 40+ hours spent flying before a review is written.  I know that the reviewer has taken the time to get the full experience, and the review (for me at least) has a lot more weight to it.

Also, clearly stated hardware/system specs from the reviewer is a welcome bit of information I've always appreciated from AVSIM reviews.

Looking forward to your next batch of reviews, nice to see them for X-Plane!

[TedG]

I've seen 20 and 40+ hours spent flying before a review is written. 

Never mind the screenshot selection and edits, troubleshooting time (if needed), documentation review, background email conversations with devs, and of course actually writing the piece itself in a reasonably informative and entertaining manner  .

It is hard work at times but quite satisfying when the piece is completed.

The AVSIM review team is outstanding...and I have noted the the excellent job done by the XP blog guys. I would say the only other outlets for accurate reviews of sims in general would be the good folks at SimHQ and Subsim.

Enough from me....back to the grindstone!