IRIS Twin Star_"Deal or a Dud"?

[falcon409]

I refuse to participate any longer in my thread. The folks who are qualified have more or less validated my statements, the rest. . . .

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with the FDE, if there was then my aircraft would exhibit the same problems that others claim to have. My realism settings are now maxed, it flies perfectly, it's modeled beautifully and I'm glad I made the purchase. End of story.

The rest of you can battle it out if you want to. I'm a happy simmer.:salute:

 

[strykerpsg]

OK, so the the rest can continue to talk about their experiences as to whether or not it's a deal or a dud.....

It is interesting to note there are some great issues being brought about and all the while not bashing. I too am a happy simmer, just now more enlightened towards my future purchase.

Matt

 

[Skittles]

I refuse to participate any longer in my thread. The folks who are qualified have more or less validated my statements, the rest. . . .

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/index.php

Are they qualified?

Thanks for your updates Pam, things are looking much better. Great aircraft, glad the problems are getting resolved so quickly.

 

[warchild]

Your very welcome . I'm always happy to help where i can ..

 

[N400QW]

Falcon,

I have to agree with Skittles and maintain that the thread hasn't totally gone off track and since it was titled "Deal or a Dud"? it garnered my attention too, because I have purchased most of Iris' earlier items and enjoyed them, just not too crazy about their latest releases so wanted to see the feedback others have as well about their purchase. Perhaps in the future titling your thread more along the lines of "accurate FDE" versus Deal or Dud, may bring more comments about the FDE instead of some feelings about Iris or other producers.

As for the content contained within the thread, I am pleased to see many other opinions, including those from Eaglesoft on their characteristics. As a matter of fact, I was elated to see Eaglesoft producing one (DA42) as well, since someone told me most producers will not make duplicate aircraft, so as not to compete with other poducers, a claim I found a bit contrary to a free market society.

Thanks all for the feedback, looking forward to more.

Matt

To be honest we've been working on our DA42 for several years between all of our other products and had recently made great strides toward completion when news of the Iris product came.
Frankly there was no way we were going to throw two or more years work down the drain over their product release. In addition, we believe that users will be well satisfied with our Diamond DA42 Twin Star and they will certainly not have to rework their FDEs.

On a similar note, we've observed two product releases in the last few weeks. Both have users scrambling to patch or rebuild the FDEs for proper flight.

This seems a bit unusual to us so wanted to ask if Eaglesoft can be permitted to sell products and then have the customers complete the FDEs?
Just asking because it would save us a ton of work.:isadizzy:

 

[warchild]

::: Dont you wish ::...
But it does point out something..

Most developers have a guy that does the models, another guy doing gauges, another guy on the FDE a guy on sound and still another on paints.. i Know Jose did the model, and Matt Winn did the paints. David did the gauges sounds, and flight model. He missed three entries in the fde out of all of that combined work. Only three.. maybe its not a Masterpiece, but i aint gonna fault him.. I'd say he did a great job. I sure as hell couldnt have done it all.

i want to say good things about ES, but truth told, i dont own any of your planes. for many years it was tubeliners and military for me. tubeliners let me be around other simmers who enjoyed what they were doing, and military planes let me dance in ways my old body has never seen as possible. GA aircraft were never on the menu till i worked on the Goose. Now i fly ATRs, Twotters and BN-2s for my friends VA, and my plate is full with a very stubborn and precocious little girl called the Pasped Skylark.. So there still isnt a lot of time for GA aircraft as i'm a confirmed workaholic. i own a couple of pipers and the AOPA cardinal ( Which is a truly wonderful aircraft to fly.. thank you AOPA ) and of course Bills Epics, but thats about all..
Pam

 

[svogeler]

Hi Pam,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!

With your fine tuning of the aircarft.cfg, I can finally land the Twinstar according to the manual. With full flaps, she now looses speed faster and settles down with about 62 kts - right on the runway numbers.
One question: In your instructions you wrote to "Change the wing_area from 144 to 177", however, my setting was already 175.3. Did you mean to reduce this value to 144 or should it be left at 177? Right now, I have reduced it to 144 and am very happy with it. The only thing I still find a bit strange is that the brakes are a bit weak, but I can live with that.

Again, many thanks to you and all others who contributed to this helpful thread!

Best Regards,
Sven

 

[warchild]

Hi Pam,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!

With your fine tuning of the aircarft.cfg, I can finally land the Twinstar according to the manual. With full flaps, she now looses speed faster and settles down with about 62 kts - right on the runway numbers.
One question: In your instructions you wrote to "Change the wing_area from 144 to 177", however, my setting was already 175.3. Did you mean to reduce this value to 144 or should it be left at 177? Right now, I have reduced it to 144 and am very happy with it. The only thing I still find a bit strange is that the brakes are a bit weak, but I can live with that.

Again, many thanks to you and all others who contributed to this helpful thread!

Best Regards,
Sven

If you set it back to 175.3 you'll be fine.. the version of the flight model i have was from an early Alpha version so its different than the released version, however, i forgot that little fact so i must apologize.. if you have a wing area of 175.3 your right on the money because i know David took that number directly from the manual..
The 144 was a rough estimate place keeper that was used on the first flight model to help simply get it into the air.. the 175.3 is the exact size that it actually is, and the 177 was the number i found quoted on airliners.net.
it surprised me when i saw it because i would have thought that the diamond twin had less wing than its glider like daddy, the diamond star, but it has lots more it turns out.. go ahead and change that number back to 175.3 and i think you'll be very happly surprised.. ..

Regarding braking.. I believe that the twinstar has reversing props, so you should be able to apply normal brakes, and then hit shift-F2 to reverse the props.. That should give you the extra braking power your looking for..

 

[svogeler]

Thanks, Pam. Resetted the value wing_area value to 175.3. Landing the Twinstar makes a lot of fun now.

Regarding prop reversers, as to my knowledge, the twinstar doesn't have them.

Best Regards,
Sven

 

[warchild]

Yup.. i just checked the Diamond Air site, and it does have constant speed props, but nowhere does it say they are reversing .. My apologies on that.. ..

 

[N400QW]

::: Dont you wish ::...
But it does point out something..

Most developers have a guy that does the models, another guy doing gauges, another guy on the FDE a guy on sound and still another on paints..

i want to say good things about ES, but truth told, i dont own any of your planes. Pam

If you did you would find that from our inception we used the services of Rob Young of "Real Air" at no small cost. This was the case until we found our own in house FDE guy.

He happens to be the one who completed the FDE for our CX2.0 which is highly lauded for its beautiful hand flying characteristics. He is also the one who has made our DA42 fly like the real deal.
I will add one other bit to this. When Eaglesoft states that we have real world pilots as consultants and advisors this is not sales hyperbole but rather a fact. They do hold our "feet to the fire" before they will let it pass muster.:mixedsmi:

 

[Mathias]

If this is not sales hyperbole but rather a fact.

I would at least call it bad style to permanently hijack a thread about a concurring product.
It begins to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[N400QW]

I would at least call it bad style to permanently hijack a thread about a concurring product.
It begins to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Nothing permanent or hijacking about our comments. Sorry you think in those terms.:mixedsmi:

 

[boxcar]

.
Am finding myself agreeing with you, Mathias.

A dozen posts on this thread from a developer of a competing product. No matter that EDG began theirs first... & this has happened before with other products. Something isn't tasting right to me & not settling well.
.
.

 

[N400QW]

.
Am finding myself agreeing, Mathias.

A dozen posts on this thread from a developer of a competing product. No matter that EDG began theirs first... & this has happened before with other products. Something isn't tasting right to me & not settling well.
.
.

Get over it man. It's a discussion, not life or death for any party here including yourself.
The fact that competing developers build the same product is hardly news. Just take a look at all the devs building Pipers, Cessnas, Beechs, etc. and the tube 737, 757,767, Airbus, etc.

 

[boxcar]

.

* If on a budget, by all means go with Iris.

* The FDE and G1000 are quite different as is the model and texture set. :mixedsmi:

* Sorry to hear that you consider our quality as Abacus quality but each to his own.

* In no case can taking a poor file set to a different machine improve the basic characteristics of a poor file set any more than taking a great file set to a poor machine diminish the great file set. :salute:

* My statement was about our DA42, not Iris's.... No problem Sven, you can take a look here: http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/DiamondDA42.htm

* To be honest we've been working on our DA42 for several years between all of our other products and had recently made great strides toward completion when news of the Iris product came. Frankly there was no way we were going to throw two or more years work down the drain over their product release. In addition, we believe that users will be well satisfied with our Diamond DA42 Twin Star and they will certainly not have to rework their FDEs. On a similar note, we've observed two product releases in the last few weeks. Both have users scrambling to patch or rebuild the FDEs for proper flight. This seems a bit unusual to us so wanted to ask if Eaglesoft can be permitted to sell products and then have the customers complete the FDEs? Just asking because it would save us a ton of work. :isadizzy:

* I will add one other bit to this. When Eaglesoft states that we have real world pilots as consultants and advisors this is not sales hyperbole but rather a fact. They do hold our "feet to the fire" before they will let it pass muster. :mixedsmi:

* Nothing permanent or hijacking about our comments. Sorry you think in those terms. :isadizzy:

* Get over it man. It's a discussion, not life or death for any party here including yourself.

Am very much enjoying the discussion. Am not appreciating the inuendo as well as telling a repeat customer what to do, Ron. Was simply expressing my opinion in a non-hostile way. Your words are speaking for themselves, imo.

..

 

[N400QW]

.
Am very much enjoying the discussion. Am not appreciating the inuendo as well as telling a repeat customer what to do, Ron. Was simply expressing my opinion in a non-hostile way. Your words are speaking for themselves, imo.

Humour or irony is not easily conveyed in forums so I'll try again.
My remarks to you are intended as levity and are certainly not hostile to you or others.
All too often, FS discussions tend to be much too serious so I attempted to shed humorous light on the fact that competing developers build the same or similar products all the time.
Perhaps I should have used "lighten up" instead of "get over it" and this smiley instead of the wave one.

 

[jpmes]

Ron,

Yes developpers make competing products but usually, they have the decency to avoid hijacking threads discussing a competitor's product in order to promote their own. You have already done that on Avsim a few months ago and now you are doing it here.You guys at Eaglesoft make nice planes but some of the methods you see fit to use to sell them just stink.

Jean-Paul

 

[N400QW]

Ron,

Yes developpers make competing products but usually, they have the decency to avoid hijacking threads discussing a competitor's product in order to promote their own. You have already done that on Avsim a few months ago and now you are doing it here.You guys at Eaglesoft make nice planes but some of the methods you see fit to use to sell them just stink.

Jean-Paul

Jean, my remarks hardly fit the hijacking mode but you are welcome to your opinion just as we are are to ours.
Frankly, we've already stated that we purchased the Iris version to support their effort and for evaluation. This is a somewhat common practice in the dev world.

As to sales and selling let me be clear.
We offer products for sale and potential customers are free to determine if they like them at our pricepoint.
At no point do we offer false or misleading sales hyperbole and are perfectly content to receive whatever sales that users decide for themselves.

In fact, we've often stated that if potential customers do not like our product or pricepoint then they should "pass on this one".:mixedsmi:

 

[n4gix]

I would at least call it bad style to permanently hijack a thread about a concurring product.
It begins to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Post #3 first mentioned Eaglesoft, and it wasn't made by Ron...