Pipers 970 Review

[simbabeat]

A review of Pipers 970 by yours truly over at Armchair aviation:

http://armchairaviation.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=16:pipers-970-review-by-simon-b&Itemid=26

[GlowWorm]

Aloha simbabeat,

Interesting review - I'm going to add some comments. Just my perspective.

[davidr]

Hi Simon,

An interesting and well structured review. As an ex-AVSIM Staff Reviewer for 6 years, Jack has invited me also to write some reviews for Armchair Aviation, so I look forward to being your 'stablemate' as it were.

The only point I'd add about your Pipers 970 review is that I personally feel this package is so different to any other payware out there, that it almost deserves for this to be factored a little more. Are the VC cockpit textures quite similar between the ACFs, yes they are, but Jason manages this collection as one project or 'item', so linking back into the amazing value of the package, I would guess that if every aircraft had a completely independently designed & implemented cockpit, then the price would possibly be between 5x and 10x what it is.

I own the CRJ, the beautiful FJS Dash 8, the Corvalis TT, Falco and a couple of other stunning aircraft for X-Plane, and yes these aircraft have visually more complex and detailed VCs than the Piper collection. But some of those planes do not feel as realistic, balanced, and beautful to fly as the Pipers do, so it's horses for courses. I guess if Jason had released just one of these Pipers for $14 it would still be worth it, and the 'commonality' between some of the cockpits would be less obvious. But what he's done is offered more choice, variation, fun, and flight model realism by applying some common design principles across 14 models, that are very different aircraft to fly in X-Plane. I would see this as a positive point for the product rather than be quite so repetitive as you were in your review about the cockpit similarities and texture quality.

Are the Pipers the absolute cutting edge state of the art in aircraft design for X-Plane? Probably not, but they contain that rare ingredient; they just feel fantastic to fly and be in.

Still a good review though and I certainly agreed with your overall summary.

Cheers,
David.

[simbabeat]

Ya I really didn't mean to be very critical but I like to stick to my rubric.

[AADX]

cockpits are actually dark, can be dark, when seen in natural light. w/o flash, w/o door open for extra light. and what the eye sees where the exposure is focused at. different displays will appear different. color calibration or lack of. pc side, display side, and program side gamma.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=557

the modern models did have beige panels, go back to PIPERS950 and they're there. and... many people, expressed that they wanted the elder style black panels. I'm not kidding. they wanted the elder style black panels, and, the traditional gauges. so while you put down 2D flat panels, that is the only way that can accommodate user modifiable, user re-arrangeable panels. In most all cases, they have baked shadow treatments, and in some cases, rendered lamp layer also, that work on top of whatever the end user might choose, rearrange, or whichever panel type they apply. I did do 3d fixture panels for a while, and I got eaten alive by people wanting to rearrange the panel like theirs, this way or that way. (the header graphic on my site, is 3D fixture panel) The only way to provide for open ended user rearrangeable panel, is exactly how I have done it. The users wanted black based panels, not beige, so it went back from beige to black. Usually because they apply the traditional gauges at the same time. The X-Plane Avidyne MFD fails 0/100 scale, which is singularly responsible for all engine display information. I've done that in Cirrus SR, and then Peter Slodowy went on to further that in SR2X with generics and groupings, but that is very specific and singularly applicable only to SR2X. No amount of holding Austin's feet to the fire is getting anything done on the built-in Avidyne functionality or MFD. We can hope, but presently it's not. So, the PFD is ~95% acceptable and lends itself to the view of modern models, lends itself to the modern aircraft panel workflow, but engine information stays on consistent gauges. And, that also then means that the panels can be import analog/digital back and fourth, and user rearrangeable.

The instruments are not "all default" there is no sense reinventing the wheel remaking 'standard gauges'. I also feel strongly about not disrespecting the instrument artwork Sergio has done for all of the standard instruments, radios, etc. That said, in every case where a unique gauge is needed, it is there. MP, FF, TIT, ... double gauges, triple gauges, custom squares, custom made pressurization gauge, my own VVI, ASI's arc'd by me, not auto-fill (might be auto-fill on the 28-1x0's because they share panel content while having different v-speeds). the engine rack of saratoga, and seneca.. As far as the Garmin panels of the Mirage/Meridian now. It's Garmin styled/similar "Garmin GX", but obviously different and should be seen and used as it is, not compared to real G1000 unit because it's not said to specifically be that.

From FYI.txt*, that come with Pipers:
Due to the nature of Pipers, I can't / won't put the custom MFD solution from the Cirrus SR's into the Avidyne paneled Pipers. So the Avidyne based Pipers have the PFD only, with owner option standard engine instruments, and radios. MFD is not avaiable. In the future, or on future wide panels, sure. you can drop the std X-Plane Avidyne MFD over there.. to fill the area.

A Meridian or PA46 group may spinnoff with Garmin GX from the PiperJet. But some elements conflict with other elements for trying to provide different panel solutions, which all rely on the same crop of cockpit folder elements.

From CCM510 Production Notes:
New to the CCM510 for X-Plane is this all custom, all custom fabricated Garmin GX full glass flight deck solution. Based in some small part on the G300 from the Cessna 162A Skycatcher, my desgination GX (not G3000, not G1000) is an all custom fabricated solution to appear similar in appearance and similar in form-factor to the Garmin full screen integrated systems (IS), but is in NO-WAY similar in operation, OS, or display to any Garmin glass IS. This is a custom fabricated Garmin appearance based on all stock x-plane EFIS and ECAM display elements, with custom graphic solutions for buttons and knobs to actuate the system. Some systems have visible knobs for, some may be "touch-screen" so if you don't find a knob for a value you may be trying to change, move the mouse over that value directly and you should see the up/down arrows to adjust. The on-screen BARO value is one I can think of off hand.

Along with this custom fabricated Garmin GX solution is the radically oversized main map display, AND the radically reduced size PFD mini-map display.They are x-plane default efis maps, so no terrain display is available, but I have done some pretty magical things to get them to display so large and so small without making a mess of distortion, scale, etc. In most cases you'll want to reduce the distance scale to 10-20 miles, as at 40 miles on such a large map display, hundreds of fixes will be visible and make a mess of the screen. Each map display option and ecam display option are represented by buttons on the bezel of the MFD. I have changed the map-mode text in the final (right) position to say "ECAM" which will clear all map content from the screen so you can see any annunciator warnings, or fuel status on the ECAM screen display that is co-located with the map.

custom_systems then means being directly responsible for how that works. that's just too much liability to support. Austin has done phenomenal with the programming and functionality of X-Plane regardless of who, and how much we all (myself including) bag on X-Plane's built in functions, Austin himself, or how it works, doesn't work, or anything in between. In some cases, making points out of errant systems should make the core simulator better, instead, people one off their own solutions, which are subject to breakage, support liability, etc. I have been also murdered by breakage, when I've done things outside the box, only to have an x-plane core change invalidate everything I had done. Seasoned veterans making content for X-Plane, are very safe and know the bounds of the box to stay within. New eager budding producers, are quick to leap outside of the box.. they'll learn, in time.

I've been making aircraft for x-plane, dealing with Austin, and X-Plane's idiosyncrasies since 1996 at v2.5 and have experience with v1.0. 15 years. I've watched people come, and go. I've watched which designers remain, and which ones burn out. I've watched tides of public behavior revolving around x-plane and different websites/web_cultures.

What are virtues to some, may not be to others, and vice versa.
Keeping consistent priorities and perspective, is and will always be a key to a long content life, in x-plane, and beyond.

so, in the end. everyone's opinions will vary. there's a saying about opinions. nevertheless, everyone has theirs and are entitled to it. I have my opinions and perspective as to what my priorities are. what I think is sufficient, what I find to be insufficient. what load I can bear, while what load I can take on to work on furthering things.

work_invested : work_supported/appreciated, ideally 1:1, but more often and usually... ≥1:≤1

"there is a reason for everything"

[aquila1004]

I have to say I didn't think that review was entirely fair. It puts great emphasis on how terrible the 3D cockpits are (being very rude about them at times) and only at the very end, briefly, mentions what in my mind is the main selling point of these planes: their flight models, which it acknowledges to be perfect. The fact is that the quality of the 3D cockpits is a matter of opinion… I find them much better than 3D cockpits by other designers, for a variety of reasons. A number of things mentioned as glaring flaws in the review could equally be construed as selling points: 2D panel textures, for instance, mean that the cockpits are fully customizable, something that cannot be said for a fully 3D panel. The review also contradicts itself, stating at the beginning that the Pipers package has "not stood the test of time," giving them an overall rating of 3.5 out of 5 (which I would read as "mediocre"), and then saying they are a "must-have" product. It also neglects to mention that they lack custom sounds. Put another way, if I had read this review before buying the package, I might not have bought it at all… I would, of course, have been wrong.


TH

[mutestyles]

a buck per plane and you get around 10 dollar per plane quality and even more fun thats my review