Iris Audioworx

[ColoKent]

I'm a two-seater nut too...

...I'm making known my intention to buy NOW. I'd DEARLY LOVE an F-5B, but I'll take a well-done T-38 (including a version with travel pod, please!).

The two seaters are workhorses and hacks of operational squadrons...

Love 'em...What I'd also LOVE is a well done T-33A!!! Love Piglet's but it's getting long in the tooth!

Kent

 

[deathfromafar]

David, thanks for the very eloquent and candid reply. Many of us who have been customers of yours from the DSB days did then and still enjoy the fruits of your efforts in what MOST who have paid hard earned cash for them feel a good investment not only in the product, but in your skills and knowledge and your shared interests with other developers. The faithful are faithful for good reason!



DFA

 

[Smudge]

Thanks very much... it is much appreciated.

 

[Lionheart]

Hey David,

Great looking bird and awesome work.

I think it sounds good that you went for mid-range computers. Wise decision. Only about 3% have computers that can run FSX at ultra high FR's, and making it ultra sophisticated in handling would take away from having the fun to fly the bird in the first place.

I talked with an F-16 pilot once at a Sub sandwhich shop while we were waiting in line. He said (back then) that Falcon 4.0 was made to sophisticated as a game or sim. He said it seemed easier to fly the real plane then the sim. I will always remember that.

 

[noddy]

She looks great, well done.

 

[tigisfat]

Michael from Triple Six has been working on this aircraft for over two years... he chose the D because he prefers the twin-seat over the single seater

So I guess I was right, to an extent. I figured anyone building an F-16 in the current market conditions would be doing it more out of passion. Smudge, if you were to pick a project to start tomorrow, and you were to choose based solely on profitability, would it be fair to assume that it would NOT be an F-16?

Next, (and I go over this EVERY TIME), don't like the look of it? Don't buy it then...or at least read as much in the way of reviews, or ask for impartial comments from various sources prior to purchase. Just because you consider it inferior in looks to the Aerosoft bird, doesn't mean that the product is inferior. We all have different priorities in what we look for in aircraft.

You're right. To boot, I haven't noticed anything I don't like about the F-16D. In fact, I think the hard turn sound effects are cool as all get-out. This video proves legitimacy to any doubters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQWyfaReJxo&feature=email . I just think that the Aerosoft F-16 is damn near perfect. Phenomenal sounds, model, VC and flight dynamics. It has very in depth avionics too. Inferiority? I won't go that far. We'll have to wait and see.

I've been in the business long enough to know you can't please everyone...one man's 'best aircraft ever' is another man's 'steaming pile'.

I don't think anyone has ever called the Aerosoft F-16 a steaming pile.

Whilst I am aware that Tigisfat and Gajit were unimpressed with the Tomcat, ..........I am sure this will also be the case with the F-16D, as it has been with every aircraft we've released.....

(If I paraphrased you a little to much, I apologize) I doubt this will be the case. I really don't have anything negative to say about your new product, I swear. It looks highly innovative and brings new and cool features to the table. Anyway, unless someone I know buys it, I won't get to check the final version out. I don't have the funds to buy two F-16s.

....we'll be doing soundpacks in the future, for various aircraft, either for individual downloads or licencing to other commercial groups for their products.QUOTE] This sounds cool. We need more of this stuff. Bad sounds ruin many projects, and there are many must haves that noone but one dev has made. When shops like yourself and TSS make stand alone sounds packs, I can fix older aircraft up a little bit so that I will still fly them when compared to my newer products.

 

[gajit]

Smudge has impressed me with his reply. I cant argue against any of it without being pedantic. I only hope that the texturing inside and out can become far more convincing on this compared to the Tomcat. The arguement that it has impact on frame rates does not hold. I have an ancent PC but can still run many of the latest addons. Alphasim have improved their VCs so there is no excuse for anyone else!!!

 

[Quixoticish]

Smudge has impressed me with his reply. I cant argue against any of it without being pedantic. I only hope that the texturing inside and out can become far more convincing on this compared to the Tomcat. The arguement that it has impact on frame rates does not hold. I have an ancent PC but can still run many of the latest addons. Alphasim have improved their VCs so there is no excuse for anyone else!!!

This is a perfect example of what David was saying where one mans "best aircraft" is one mans "steaming pile".

Not to say that anything from Alphasim has been a "steaming pile", in fact they've produced some cracking releases, but while you say they have improved their VC's in my experience they now take an eternity to load properly when shifting views leaving you with a completely blank, untextured screen for what seems like an age rendering many of their newer releases completely unuseable by me sadly.

 

[Lionheart]

The arguement that it has impact on frame rates does not hold.

With your computer perhaps.

FSX is a new 'ball of wax'. Never have so many different elements caused so many different reactions in frame rates and performance on various computers with a sim.

Overkill is the same as under-detailed. Too much is as bad as not enough... Especially in FSX.

 

[yago9]

Okay,



Next, (and I go over this EVERY TIME), don't like the look of it? Don't buy it then...or at least read as much in the way of reviews, or ask for impartial comments from various sources prior to purchase. Just because you consider it inferior in looks to the Aerosoft bird, doesn't mean that the product is inferior. We all have different priorities in what we look for in aircraft.

I personally find absolutely no merit in a good looking slideshow, others however find that looks are everything, (and probably spend all their time flying from spot view, which I would do if I was of that frame of mind!) I would rather have an aircraft that performs well on my system, with a heap of switches and systems to play with. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I beg to differ.Good looks ,switches and good systems go hand in hand.
Otherwise you dont need an external model at all.You need a bath tub ,some gauges and a good FDE.That will improve your frame rates dramatically.
I didn,t form an impression over the exterior looks of this two seater F16 yet.VC seems more functional but less attractive than the Aerosoft version. I just wish someone will nail the real shape of the F16 for once.
Aerosoft screwed up the nose and front part big time.Wrong thickness
wrong angle of the nose, barelly resembles the real thing.Sad thing , modeler lelt and no chance of any new models or corrections.

 

[gajit]

OK OK - i give in - I love IRIS I love IRIS

Everything is ok in my world.

Happy all??? LOL - only joking - each to their own eh?

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Different strokes for different folks they say...

I will say this however, having worked with Mr Brice now, and checking out this model in person, there are certainly some systems being modelled on this plane that the Aerosoft version does not have. Having also worked for both teams, I can say with all honestly and modesty, that these planes offer things that are indeed different. The Iris plane will IMO be a better representation of the systems itself.

I say all of this also as a former USAF Electronic Warfare technician that worked on the F-16.

 

[joanvalley]

It would be so much easier to think of this product as a great complement to the great Aerosoft's F-16 instead of a competitor, Aerosoft has stated several times that there are no plans whatsoever to build a two seater. I did that when Captain Sim came out with the F-18 two seater that complemented the default F-18 that came with Acceleration.

It seems unfair to start judging beforehand, Iris has always been and will be part of my FS2004 and FSX, why? Because they offer what we, one segment of the market, are looking for.

There should be no comparison though, both models are different indeed, targeting different segments as well, but both can be part of one's repertoire if you like change once in a while. To me, the F-16D will a phenomenal product, I know it sounds great, I know it flies great and I know it looks great as well.

Jose.

 

[Kiwikat]

The thing that disappointed me the most about the Aerosoft offering is its lack of systems. By the way it was first advertised, I expected something more along the lines of the VRS F-18. I really do hope that IRIS can go a bit more in depth with their twin seater. Oh, and I hope IRIS can make a rudder that doesn't roll the plane instead of yawing it... Aerosoft kinda failed at that one...

 

[Smudge]

I'll be posting two vids showing me start up the F-16 in the next hour or two.. I'll post links on the forum if people want to looksee..