Cameron

Huh? Guess you shouldn't buy the 777 or other products shown here too then, right? They would cost too much... In all seriousness, I appreciate everything that FlyTampa and the Cloud9 guys make. I do suggest purchasing the packages if you're looking for an immersible experience in X-Plane or even FS. They work hard at what they do, and do a good job at it. So far I've had pretty good luck with the Cloud9 stuff, with the exception of Orlando for FS X. These packages convert quite well as is, Joe.

Kamil, It is highly likely that the plug-in you speak of will not work perfectly with our CRJ. Once the CRJ is released you may want to contact the author of the plug-in you speak of for CRJ compatibility. As for updates: When we have something to share, this will be the place to see it. No one will be left in the dark, and no one will be told more info than the next. As long as you follow these forums you'll know the latest updates and release info should we have something to announce.

LAX = Cloud9 LHR = UK2000 Heathrow Xtreme DXB = FlyTampa

Mark, Currently there is no product that does what you are seeking unless you go about making it on your own, however, I can tell you a landclass-like product is in the works.

Hey, inktomi, I think it's an excellent choice of aircraft for a beginner! It's small, has some good learning aspects to it, allows you to dive into Planemaker and understand the flight model a bit more, and has a relatively small enough panel for you to get used to and understand the generics and how to customize them! If the information is so readily available, I say go for it and have some fun!

Sorry, I disagree. If this product was priced at $20-25, you'd be seeing less of this "focus" on the weaknesses. The only $65 value in this product is what Peter values himself at...which is completely acceptable..to HIM. If you're going to compare it with what the rest of the market offers, then this is a very overpriced product. That's the simple explanation of it all! His other products appear to be more fair priced (and are told to be more complete than the A380), and as such, you don't hear the complaints. Adding an obj model to your product doesn't instantly make it worth $30 more in majority of the markets eyes...as seen with most posts here. Exactly what I've said in an earlier post.

The post right above yours says "give or take a few months..."

Why shouldn't they? If you're dumping $65 down, one would hope you get great craftsmanship and a great flight model. I can't attest to the flight model (I haven't bought it), but it's quite obvious there are things lacking...something admitted by the author. I find this statement rather contradictory. Why should people complain or be concerned about this if Peter is well known for good flight models? You went on to say: "Peter Hager, as I understand it, is very thorough in this discipline." So if he's so thorough in it, doesn't it make sense that this is NOT the center of complaint at the given time? I certainly see it that way.

John, On behalf of Javier, Anton, and myself thanks for the kind compliments! It's always encouraging to see people interested in our projects and excited for their release. We'll be in touch!

Depends on who you are.

Nice shots, Jacoba! Thanks for sharing! I'm off to download a baron now.

The simple answer to this is "yes," we are incorporating sound sets into the package.

Julian, This was taken care of earlier today. Javier has just notified me saying you've said you didn't receive an e-mail still, so I've re-sent that email (two times now) to your address. If you have not received this still, please private message me here. If you have received it, please let us know just the same!

I've been silent on this topic, but I think there's been enough posts now to see where everyone is at. First off, as a publisher of payware products I and the other developers behind them understand that criticizing is all part of the gig. Most criticism is the stem of what people WANT, and as such, should be taken as constructive from developers regardless of whether it's harsh or not. Decide what the masses say (don't focus on just one), and assess what's worth it to YOU as a developer or publisher. Just because this is Peter's job (if it is), doesn't mean we should be criticizing him or anyone else any less (this includes X-Aviation products). He's taking people's hard earned money, and I'm sure he'd like their money again. If he DOES want it again, he's going to need to face the criticism and show that he cares so not as to leave a sour taste in a customers mouth. The main consensus here and other places is that people feel the product does not JUSTIFY a ~ $65USD price tag. All the bickering here tells me people want or would be willing to give his plane a shot, but not for that amount of cash. To a consumer it appears a bad investment compared to what they have gotten in the past for less money. Didn't you say he does this for a living? While it's not my goal to bash Peter, I must say that I'm willing to bet that for this product in the state it is now he'd probably be making more cash flow with a lower price tag. It's all economics, but with a lower price tag for something that appears and is admittedly incomplete comes more revenues and less opposition/criticism since the expectation of what the package offers is lower. At the end of the day Peter has his place in the XP market and feels his work is worth the price tag. To him, maybe it's not all the cash that matters, but what he feels his own work is worth (thus I would chalk this up to a hobby and not a living for him). The buying public may not agree, and they'll make their statement by not making the purchase.

Julian, This was released some time ago. If you have not receieved this please check your spam box. If this fails, please re-contact X-Aviation for further assistance.

I do believe you've misunderstood Javier. The pilots are of a proper scale. The reason the pilot looks SLIGHTLY smaller from external nose on view is due to the fact that Javier has chosen to have the pilots sit a little bit further back in the seats for reasons of seeing the cockpit better. It has nothing to do with scale. Best efforts have been made to ensure most systems today will get an enjoyable experience with the aircraft. Once completed, features and minimum requirements will be posted and you can assess whether this aircraft will ultimately be for you. Disabling features like animations (a part of the OBJ) is not something we have planned at this time.

John, Down the line we will be doing upgrades to our previous works. We have built the application we use to achieve this with that factor in mind.

That is correct.

Hey, Joe, No minimum specs have been outlined yet, but if you're able to run the MU-2 and BK-117 with no problems, then you should expect to be able to run the CRJ the same if not a little better.

It usually helps to post about things you know about in full detail. Hearing them from others usually doesn't get the full story across. I was part of an entire group (XPFW) banned. It was not a personal thing against any action I did. The group was banned for reasons of having a forum, and the current owners of the .org (Felix really), as well as a moderator named Chez Whitey had a competition in their mind of seeing which site (org or XPFW) would get more registrations. Ultimately, the site was sold, new admins in, they evaluated the situation and found it to be petty. As such, nearly almost all bans that were similar to that of the XPFW group were lifted. And he does great work! The very work (CRJ-200) that so many are raving about as a sort of "revolution" to X-Plane in the MSFS world, as well as within the XP realm. I take it you don't know him on a personal basis as I, so I am sorry for that whether you want to or not. He's a very nice guy who made a bad decision on the .org forums and got reprimanded for his actions. It doesn't mean he's the devil. Not sure what his response has much to do with anything, or if you're under the assumption that I believe Javiers ban was wrongful, but I fully agree with Six7's post. Tom, got that?....note to self. Just to re-iterate, I think the interaction that the .org does with the community in terms of contests and polls are great. It's a good way to keep people involved! I just don't agree with the name. That's it. /moan (vote to come at a later date) If you're not an org moderator, anyhow. None the less, you're still welcome here just the same. You can "moan" about this place all you want Will, but take note that most of those anti-org topics aren't full of just one persons agreed sentiments, and it's not just this forum that contains them. Without doing hard investigating to dig up the many I've seen elsewhere, here's one for you now: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=267918. All the above said, I think the .org is a great place. Always have. I've been around it since the day it was opened by K. Nader. It's been great to watch the community increase over time, and I've done my part in the past to contribute not only to the community, but monetarily to the .org through donations. It's existence is good, the way it's ran...not so much. In time it will all pan out. Come back to "moan" again soon, Will.

Hi, Donald, Thanks for the update! Glad to hear you've got yourself up and running like previously said.

Haha. Oy vey. This coming from a moderator who works alongside Nicolas at the org? Not surprised. Thanks for your contributions to the thread, Will.

Sorry, man. Truth hurts, sometimes. I think you mean XPFW and not XPFR, of which I have no affiliation to. Either way, sorry to hear you acknoweledge you get scared off easily. Don't be silly, Will. Read between the lines. If you don't get it still, it only proves my point further.

Do you have a hard time reading sarcasm? It appears so. So if it was something you saw later in the post, why "moan" about it, Will? No prob, Will! I got ya covered: http://www.peopleschoice.com/pca/ No, definitely not a big deal...depending who you are, I suppose. For someone like you, me, or others who have been in the community and stuck by X-Plane long enough, we know what the poll really is about. To those just coming in (especially from the MSFS world)?...Not so much. They get the wrong impression. We can argue this all day long. I know better than to know you'll change your mind anyhow. You've demonstrated that portion of your thick thoughts in the rants section all too much. A compliment from Will! I'll take it! Thanks for acknowledging the hard work gone into the payware here. All the same, I love contributions of freeware (as the founder of XPFW, and still as a member there), as well as the fact that it is KEY and CRUCIAL to growth in this type of community. Perhaps you've thought wrong, eh? You get my vote.

You appear to be missing the point. Yes, Tom's posts were far from genuine...it doesn't take much thought to figure that out, nor does it take much to figure out why. He's simply stating that "Best Of" should more or less be named "People's Choice" or similar. See it how you want, Will, but aside from being said here, it's been said on other forums as well: The "Best Of" titles are perceived by those who are new to XP really as the BEST that X-Plane sees. We both know this is not the case. There is nicer freeware out there. Craftsmanship doesn't always win in those votes, and as such, "Best Of" is just a bad title for the poll. Yet again, it's the name being mocked, not the idea of the poll itself. Popular vote...people's choice. Yes and no. I, personally, would rather see the expansion of the sim through community sites and more 3rd party developers coming over.