• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Why developers do not like Connie?

Manfred and Volker have done a tremendous job on the "Connies" Their constant tinkering with all the files has really paid off, and if it matters, I flew about 1500 hrs on them as part of flight crews and I tell you, I preferred all the hours on them than on the later, "more stable" platforms. She had a way of making a believer out of you. Would love to get on one again, but not much chance of that. Thank you to the Manfred-Volker crew for all their hard work, it really shows. Don
 
thunder100 said:
I think to remember that there were about 60 GMAX exports of just the front windows
Click to expand...

Wow!

(Front windows are really tough to "get right". Really, really, REALLY tough!)



Daube said:
A2A standard might be extreme for a freeware model. But DMFlightsim standard would have been just perfect, don't you think ?
Click to expand...

Well...no.


Every developer has his/her own "footprint", or "signature". You either like it or don't.

If we all had to "piglet" our models, there'd be dog stuff everywhere! How awful would that be!?
 
Bjoern said:
Well...no.


Every developer has his/her own "footprint", or "signature". You either like it or don't.

If we all had to "piglet" our models, there'd be dog stuff everywhere! How awful would that be!?
Click to expand...

It's not what I meant.
I was refering to level of completion, telling that A2A standards were of course not needed, but the same level of completion than Dmflightsim planes would have been just perfect.

Dmflightsim's planes have virtual cockpits with flat sections which have 2D subpanels copied on them, with gauges and buttons. The Connies I've seen are just like that, excepted that the VC is not complete, especially for the FE panel which shown only some 2D gauges, although being "flat" (no 3D objects/obstacles). That's why it made me think about the planes from Dmflightsim.

Now, I'm not bashing the model or anything. The origin of the remarks were the original poster asking for "good" VC, which cannot be found on the freeware Connies yet.
 
That is one reason why I like the Just Flight Connie. You can move around to the back side engineer's panel and use it, no pop ups. Also the connie has windows so you can see the interior and lights at night.
 
Daube said:
I was refering to level of completion, telling that A2A standards were of course not needed, but the same level of completion than Dmflightsim planes would have been just perfect.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, but they aren't perfect.

Of course you could still ask for the dev's source files and adapt the model to your personal preferences...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top