Long EZ Review MSFS 2020 Rutan Model 61 by Indiafoxtecho - msfs aircraft addons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 сер 2024
- (PC Specs at bottom)
Lets take a look and Review the Long EZ Rutan Model 61, the newest plane to join Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 from a 3'rd party developer Indiafoxtecho. This is a great little single engine GA.
0:00 - Long EZ Rutan Model 61 msfs aircraft Introduction
2:04 - Long EZ Liveries and Model and Textures
2:36 - Long-EZ Interior Gauges and Avionics and Wolverines
5:43 - Long ez exterior model
6:26 - Starting the long ez cold and dark
6:50 - Rutan long ez start and idle sounds
7:47 - Taxi the msfs long-ez to runway
9:09 - Strange Stuff
10:08 - Long EZ Takeoff
10:29 - Funny msfs ASI airspeed indicator
11:26 - Good flight characteristics for the msfs flight model on the Long EZ
12:07 - Flying low in the Long EZ
12:47 - Landing the Rutan Model 61 Long EZ
13:29 - Long EZ at night
14:13 - Long EZ Review for msfs 2020 Conclusion
Be sure to check out my other video series on the TBM 930 and Navigraph charting tools if you enjoyed this.
TBM 930 Video Series
1 - TBM 930 Cold & Dark Start - • TBM 930 Cold & Dark St...
2 - TBM 930 Creating an IFR Flight Plan in the Garmin G3000 - • TBM 930 - G3000 Creati...
3 - TBM 930 IFR Clearance and Taxi Procedures - • TBM 930 IFR Clearance ...
4 - TBM 930 Departure Procedures - • TBM 930 Departure Prep...
Navigraph Charting Basics and Tutorials
101 - Navigraph and MS FS 2020 The Basics - • 101 Navigraph Tutorial...
102 - Navigraph Using High & Low EnRoute Charts Tutorial - • 102 - Navigraph Unders...
103 - Types of Terminal Procedure Charts (SID/STAR/IAP) - • 103 Navigraph and MS F...
As a number of you have asked I'm running the following build which was put together mid this year in anticipation of the 3090 (on the way)
AMD 3900x CPU
AM4 PCIe 4 Motherboard
64GB DDR4 3200 RAM
Gen 4x4 Nvme
Nvidia 2080 ti - Ігри
Hi - this is Dino from IndiaFoxtEcho, main developer of this aircraft. Thanks for the fair review and the agreeable criticism. We will try and improve the aircraft in future and, to do this, feedback is essential - even if it is negative as it clearly is in many points of this review. Sure there are things which are a question of personal taste: we had very positive feedback at least on the looks of this aircraft and the flight model has been tested by several real world pilots (as if it was a seal of quality...which it is not ;-) ) - and we still think the aircraft is a fair deal. However we took note of your observations and we hope to make the product better over time.
On a slightly more technical note, some of the shortcomings of the flight model are due to the fact that, in MSFS, you cannot place your elevators and rudder in front of the CoG - we discovered this in the hard way during development and have been promised a fix by Microsoft (which did not come...but hopefully it will in future).
One artistic side...I have to confess I like the look and the textures: decision was taken to depict an old and used aircraft, but I understand some may not like it.
The most important thing for us is that we want to make sure we did not misrepresent our product: negative reviews like this, in my personal opinion, are extremely important for us and for for our customers.
Thanks for listening and not attacking the reviewer. I believe he was being honest with both of your aircraft with good constructive criticism. We look forward to your updates especially that canopy and hopefully lots more aircraft to come. Purchased both for now. Thanks for listening!
@Jeff 222 - I respectfully disagree that textures are low res, as some sheets are already 8k (including the panel) and, at least on my system, they look OK on normal pilot point of view.
But that is just my opinion, and I understand some may be disappointed. I will try my best to improve.
@@jimfrederich8852 - thanks for the appreciation, but it is really the minimum I would expect from anyone. Some things are question of personal taste and opinions, and must be respected.
Developers are not the best persons to evaluate his own work, so reviewers and consumer opinions are extremely valuable and important.
Much appreciate the honest reply Dino. Hope the interior textures, bezels and sounds in particular can be updated in the future
Hey, Dino. That's an awesome airplane model! Question: have you altered the trimming with version 1.02? In neutral, it seems very nose-heavy. I assume you wanted to counter the plane's unusual (but realistic) take off behaviour to make it more user friendly. The plane's former neutral trimming is around 60% up now, which reduces the full trimming range. Can you tell the original trim parameters in flight_model.cfg? I'd like to set it back to that and experience the plane as NOTAM has in the video.
One thing to keep in mind is that India Foxt Echo has a very very good reputation. His F35 was released with one of the versions of P3D as an official airplane and he continued to update it and perfect that aircraft for years. He was was the victim of a ransomware attack a few years back and lost a lot of his files. But he continues to make new content at a very high quality level. So if this sells well, I am sure he will continue to update it regularly.
I've had nothing but good interactions from this developer myself and his MB-339 is one of the best aircraft available IMO.
Another honest review, thanks! I bought this anyway because I love this plane and I do know this developer will update once Microsoft implements an update so he can work on a better flight model. Texture wise I am the same...cockpit textures aren't detailed and unique enough to give you the feeling of being in a real airplane and I hope it will be improved in the future.
Thanks Erik. I have been enjoying it personally. Have to separate that from my opinion though. Especially if someone is looking for this style of plane and getting something else. Really nice to explore with. Will have to revisit Brazil :) Thanks for the support.
@@NOTAM1 exactly why I love this so much. The visibility out of the cockpit is amazing and it's just a really unique design! Plus she is fast enough to cover some distance!
Great review, thank you. "open the canopy to let the wolverine out" 😂😂😂😂
6 pack with a small GPS, I couldn't ask for more!
Agreed ! First time viewer and sub'd due to Your direct, detailed but calming to the point review. I originally clicked because I have a 7.6 foot wing span RC gas EZ-61. Have not changed/bought to MFS2020 yet but good to know.
Thanks for the work you put into these. It’s really nice to see well balanced, honest reviews like these, you give praise where it’s due and offer constructive criticism where necessary, it’s really refreshing to see. Looking forward to see reviews of some Canadian scenery packs, Kelowna his now on the official marketplace (and it doesn’t look great in the screenshots) and hopefully more in the future! 🍁
That cockpit glass is a deal breaker in itself...That would drive my OCD off the wall.
lol, yeah it's pretty crazy. I think there might have been a fight with a wolverine over cocaine involved. :)
These are excellent reviews. Thanks very much!
your reviews are the best.keep it up
Very good review👍thank you. Subscribed👍
Another great review. I enjoy listening to you talk specs...it's somehow relaxing. I love dino7474's response too. I will purchase as it's a unique plane and I love those. I like how you keep saying wolverine instead of wife... :)
LMFAO you broke my code.... thanks Nate. Personally I think the Long EZ is a nice buy.
Thanks for this review. I loved flying Virtavia’s release of the Long EZ in FSX and had tried (unsuccessfully) to convert it for FS2020 a couple weeks ago. I will probably purchase in hopes that it is updated in the future.
Also really hoping it gets an update. It is a unique aircraft and fun to fly. I know the developer has a good reputation so fingers crossed.
Great video, the first time I saw one I thought the owner had collapsed his nose gear while it was parked on the ramp.
Hopefully the developer updates the aircraft - the sounds, handling, and textures need to be improved before I will be interested.
Excellent review as always!
Another excellent honest review! Thanks!
Outstanding honest and objective review, I bought on the expectation that there will be upgrades taking into account your critcs, as for now the it's overpriced but it's an investment for futur upgrades!!
I don't know where Dino got the reference photos for the cockpit, but it looks like a plane that has been sitting out in the sun for 20 or more years with no protection or care. All the knobs are faded, the canopy is scratched up, seat looks faded. At least the gauges look new and clean. I know some people like the look of a well worn cockpit but others would prefer the look as when the Rutan's first rolled the aircraft out of the workshop.
I know Dino would have prefered to wait till Asobo provided all the tools to create the proper flight model but who knows how long that's going to be. And this is an issue a lot of developers are having to deal with. This is why we don't have helo's or proper military jets yet. The tools haven't been provided by Asobo.
They should give more than one version, an "out of the box" and a "my god this thing fell into the ocean and then was left outdoors for 4 years" version
"... are people who spend a 100% of their time in the cockpit": a big YES to this. Not aimed at add-on developers, but this has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. Many sims are trending towards "sim photographer" or something. I mean, I kind of get it, the planes / cars / trains / whatevers sure are pretty. But I'm not sure why I'd want to spend most of my time looking at it from the outside, when the point of a sim is to be on the inside and interact with it. If it weren't, one could just watch a video.
In the early 1980s I saw so many Burt Rutan aircraft types at the Osh Kosh Fly In and stood right in front of Burt as he talked about his creations and answered owners questions. Amazing aircraft types. I found it interesting that you collapse the nose wheel while the aircraft is parked. Loved your comments about a Wolverine attacking the canopy! Sure hope they fix this and the flight characteristics and the rest. Thanks again for you fair review!
Thanks Jim, I have lots of airshow / fly in memories but never had a chance to meet burt. Seems like a well respected maverick of the home built world. Did know his aircraft though. Will always be legend.
@@NOTAM1 I agree he is a legend! He seemed very intelligent and down to earth. He sure had a lot of different aircraft types at that Air Show! I was quite impressed with him and his genius creations. I took the Long EZ up tonight. I liked it, but that Wolverine scratched canopy was way over the top. I have this plane in Xplane and it flies much better and it looks much better. It does the soft mushy stall that recovers very easily too. I hope this developer does listen to the constructive critiques and actually fixes its deficiencies. I flew the Italian jet tonight from Key West to Miami and made multiple take offs and landings very successfully. Strangely I did get one master caution and the engine quit. I was able to dead stick land it at the Key West NAS. I really like it and totally agree with your review. Thanks again!
@@jimfrederich8852 Thanks Jim. I can't think of the aircraft off the top, but the dual fuselage sucker he built always stuck in my head.
Great video, learned something about the rudders on this one. Not my kind of plane, so nope not for me, the sound thing is pretty unacceptable as you found the real sounds easily.
Loved the Wolverine reference :)
Thorough as always.
Nice review, thanks.
Excellent Review!
OH YES I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS
It's obviously not as easy as before to beat the looks of the default aircraft.
You nailed it. How awesome is that for the consumers. The default aircraft have raised the bar. Lets hope the devs rise to the occasion quickly.
@@NOTAM1 It's pretty sweet and I'm totally pumped. We just have to be patient while the main product needs some ripening.
@@ChristopherMangels Exactly... MS is well suited to building great SDK's. We just need to give them some time.
I think it's great you remind the developers about next gen tech (so do Grippersim). If we want to fly around in AC's with bad textures, we didn't need to spend money on MSFS. Could just have stayed on FSX. Great job.
The Wolverine: Good one :-)
Thanks for another honest review! I'm pretty sure the interior will look the part like the outside model in a bit.... but for now, i'm thinking most developers will want to bring out something not entirely finished, rather than they miss the train completely. I for one, am looking forwards to the F-15, and by the looks of things, their modeling takes first place before release... i can sort of understand the "it's good enough for release", but i just cannot fathom why you'd want negative reviews on a product that is supposed to put you in the spotlight. Just feels like there was pressure to release, rather than to wait. (for more than one product out there). I just hope the developer gets things fixed soon, and MS give him the canard-physics that are needed. I'm pretty sure he'll pull it off with the right tools.
I completely agree. I really don't care about the details outside except for what you can see out from the inside. I spend my time on the inside, and that is how I make my decision to purchase.
That engine sound is almost identical to the default FS2004/FSX Cessna 172 engine sound.
Also comparing to other 3rd party aircraft, this one seems the most functional. I feel that the developer released this version (without the correct flight model) both to appease the fans of this aircraft who had been waiting some time, and also likely out of frustration that the latest game update still didn't include it.
Overall though, despite the things you mentioned (nearly lost my drink when you mentioned about letting the wolverine out the cockpit) it seems this is a very very capable aircraft, and seems like (looking at the developers facebook) a few things have changed between them creating the initial model, and the release of the game. E.G the developer correctly implemented how rain effects work on the cockpit, but the release model didn't have these working.
Man, that cockpit glass is way overdone lol. Someone needs gloves!
Not glass, would be way too heavy. Some sort of Polycarb or Plexiglass. I had a big windshield on my motorcycle and it was made of the same stuff. After a few years the outer protective coating wears away and you get the fine scratches that are almost impossible to get rid of. But this model should at least come with a clean non scratched canopy.
Ya. I have a Long EZ. I fly it all the time and bathe it next to never. My canopy has never looked that bad. lol.
I just want to say, I got this aircraft and I love it! I realise it's not perfect, but it almost instantly became my favourite aircraft in msfs 2020 and one id imagine buying in real life. It feels like a fighter jet at GA speeds, perfect 2 seater. Thankyou to the developer for your hard work, the model looks incredible in flight and to see out of!
The only thing I wish it had (I realise the real plane doesnt) is an autopilot :/
Great and accurate review. This dev has great taste in planes choosing this for their first release along with the MB339. I really wish people were more honest and critical in their reviews as you are. There's nothing but glowing 5 star reviews. This is a great model but it's not 5 stars.
The dev just released their MB339 which doesn't have much more systems functionality than this release. That's frustrating considering that they're charging very premium prices while skimping on so much detail. I really hope devs step up their game as more competition hits the payware markets. I know these are difficult time-consuming projects but it can be done. The flight-sim market is exponentially bigger than previously and is set to grow even bigger with the Xbox/Game Pass releases. I really hope people don't become complacent with add-ons. It's a great effort but I want more for my buck if I'm paying around $20-30 for a single plane.
I really hope there's some updates coming out for these. I bought the Long-EZ and MB339 from this dev. I'm going to hold off on further purchases unless the dev issues some updates to these releases.
Was hoping you'd review this - I had the pleasure of beta testing the MB-339 and i think you would like it alot. You should definetly review the lite version when it comes out.
Have had my eye on it for a bit now. Will definitely check it out also.
Interesting plane ... Nice
It definitely is.
great review. i'm of the mind that this is a "warm up" project for building msfs addons. A curious choice given the IRL aircraft's uncommon config, but still interesting enough to consider, esp given the bubble canopy.
all in all, though, i'll pass on this since his MB-339 is already with MS/Asobo for final approval before release. That one is likely an insta-buy for me as .mil trainers are incredibly fun to fly and especially appropriate for the present state of the sim itself.
For 20 bucks it’s a good buy. I’m sure it will be worked on and with that in mind, you’ve gotten your money’s worth. Tone the canopy scratches down, add differential breaking and some random tweaks (engine rop/lop rpm leaning) and it’s a steal.
Thank you for this video. I am holding off purchasing this aircraft until it is updated. I am following dino7474's comment section waiting for word of an update. By the way, I have flown and owned experimental aircraft in real life, just not this one.
Gonna have to start working overtime ☺️
On Facebook, the Developer was also very clear about the canard modelling being delayed by Microsoft. IFE even delayed selling the plane because of this. Details are in Facebook.
Yes, he seems very honest and straight forward. Thats a nice quality. It doesn't affect my opinion on the aircraft but does allow me to respect him for it.
I believe the newest update is supporting rear powered planes like this, so should see a flight model update soon!
Fantastic in-depth honest review as always! I definitely agree with you on in-cockpit textures being very important, seems like they're neglected by third party developers sometimes. I look at DCS as the gold-standard for this, and coming from that to X-Plane and MSFS can be quite jarring at times. Those canopy marks are pretty hilarious, though. Thesounds are shocking to me honestly, I get that this is not a super expensive addon but to just have stock engine sounds that bare little resemblance to the real ones is very disappointing.
I'm sure you're busy but any idea when we can expect the next video in your Jeppesen charts series? Have been really enjoying that and eagerly awaiting the ones covering approach plates in more detail.
Hey Sean, Thanks for the kind words. Working on editing 104B right now and writing 105 SIDs to be recorded after. the MB-339 was released right in the middle of editing 104B so I stopped to go fly a jet :)
I love taxiing around with the canopy open. I hope they update the sounds so they differ with canopy open/closed.
On Orbx Central now also 😊
Thanks for the information. With the exchange rate cheaper as well for ppl in the uk £14.18
I made the Long EZ PP-ZEZ about 30 years ago and it is still flying perfectly nowadays. It is a pity that the air intake for the engine is the first idea that Burt Rutan had for an intake on the Long EZ, but was immediately modified for a flashed one, that is not represented on the current model.
I hope they come out with more variants like the one with retractable gear or side by side cockpits.
how do you get the landing gear to come down. I bought this and can't figure it out. The spawn comes up nose down into the pavement. and if you hover your mouse on the crank and scroll the mouse wheel, nothing happens, just an audible click. Seems like there's a landing gear lock somewhere? I try to take off but it says damage to the plane after a few feet into take off (due to the nose gear in the nose down position). what the heck am I missing ??? stupid me can't find anything on the googles either. The controls have gear up and gear down and toggle gear... but none of those do anything apparently on this model. (so so close to actually flying this thing)
You would think developers have VR in mind, but it doesn't seem that way. VR is coming before end of the year, yet they are making aircraft with lack luster interior. No one is going to fly in external mode with VR.
This is not the Toronto City Center airport scenery that comes with the MSFS 2020 can you advise which one you are using here ? Appreciated in Advance
If i were the dev, i would give the option of Scratch free Glass, and enhanced instruments and options for Clean/worn interior textures.
another fantastic review. i do love this sim and i’m sure it will be incredible in a year or two but for the meantime, it has very underwhelming default and payware aircraft.
Better sound, less wolverine scratches.....these are the most important improvements (imho) needed pre-SDK support updates.
yeah would love to see some nice sounds. so many people underestimate the immersion that sound can make.
Thing looks good hope they do model canard planes in the future not a bad start.
Agreed. I do have fun in this one.
@@NOTAM1 Hope they model the ferry range version in the future.
This wheelie at no speed is typical for any piston prop airplanes in MSFS. Obviously a bug in the flight model and has to be ruled out by Asobo. I guess it's the airstream from the prop over the elevator.
I had the same thought, obviously without the support for canards it thinks the elevators are aft.
I think that has something to do with the fact that they wanted to get the taildragger Bush planes right. By doing so they added somewhat of an over exaggerated elevator authority to it in order to give you the opportunity to bring the tail up during a STOL takeoff which indeed works really well. I guess the downside of that is what happens to a tricycle gear aircraft and the behaviour we have seen in this review.
@@ChrisA7X89 Agree with your assessment. If the sims flight model worked properly as far as aero surfaces in propwash, then they would get the right moments for either type of aircraft. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of confidence in Asobo's flight model right now. Dynamic stability in the pitch axis also seems wrong on many aircraft, leading me to think it's a problem with the flight model as a whole.
the wheelie the plane is able to do at a stop might be to do with the flight model not being a canard plane, maybe theres an invisible elevator behind the prop?
That's probably exactly why, just didn't want to get into the why's in the review. At the moment, you can't place the elevators forward of the center of gravity.
The gauge jaggies could be an artifact of the export of whatever tool was used to create the model. The tool is possible used more for games than up-close modeling, reducing the polygon count in favor of rendering speed for higher framerates. Usually such tools have setting to adjust this and they are just not being adjusted for a sim quality model.
That's possible. The Blackbox Cessna Birddog has the same "ugly" bezels but good gauges.
Sounds like a sound explanation. The developer of the bird dog brought up this exact point (low model for high framerates) which I think is a bit of an excuse in a modern sim but mostly took offense to his friendly reviewers suggesting it gives them 100% increase in frame rate.
I knew this wasn't true and figured it would be at most 5% or so. I did extensive testing between the bird dog / TBM and Mooney both in game and in developers wire frame mode and the results even surprised me. There was no significant difference between all 3 models in framerate. In fact the only significant drop or increase I experienced outside what could be explained as a margin of error was a drop in frames in the bird dog. This surprised me but maybe is chalked up to bad modelling or efficiency.
I didn't report the findings anywhere but just called out the dev and they dropped it and removed the post. I think although logical, in a sim with this many polygons on screen at any given moment the difference between 50,000 and 90,000 in a model is insignificant. I hope the devs can realize this.
@@NOTAM1 My personal problem with these statements is the direct comparison to definitely comparable aircraft like those you mention and every other SEP that come with the sim. They look incredibly beautiful and neither the Birddog nor the LongEze come even close.. I don't know what the difference actually is and I have absolutely no idea about addon aircraft development but keeping in mind that for example the Katana or the VL-3 cost around 1$ coming with the sim and the addons cost 15 or 20$ I expect a LITTLE more effort. It must be possible, Asobo proved it.
@@Ephedrin666 Exactly. Sometimes I feel like maybe I'm asking for too much from these devs, but I don't think so. I think its fair to ask for at least default model quality and operation. As much as everyone likes to complain about Asabo, it really shows how much they raised the bar like you eluded to.
@@Ephedrin666 Agreed, if addons are going to cost a third of the game or even half in some cases then yea, it better be incredible work.
Does this aircraft have the capability to add/remove the travel pod for the EZ?
I do not think so, not that I'm aware.
This gives me a lot of mid tier freeware fsx vibes, though of course the models look way nicer. I am pretty sure the sounds are the default fsx 172 sounds. These first gen payware aircraft probably won’t be worth it in 2 to 3 years, but they are necessary stepping stones to much better airplanes in the future,
You are correct. the panels and interior are much more first gen on many out there. not this/their model.
It boggles my mind that this is currently rated 4/5 stars in the FS marketplace. People need to up their standards.
So many newcomers with so many varying expectations. I agree though.... in MSFS the minimum standard should be default aircraft. Strange times when 3'rd parties are using the defaults as a high bar rather than a starting point. Speaks well to the defaults though.
I’m looking for a good Piper Warrior as that’s what I’m currently flying in my flight training.
Excellent little aircraft. Pretty nice little plane to be learning in also. If you can fly these a cessna will be a breeze.
Small correction it's 18 euros including VAT , 15 without. Otherwise nice review.
They should offer a second version and if necessary they can charge and extra 50 cents to pay for the cleaning of the window.
If you have FSX:SE, do a review on the Virtavia Rutan Long-EZ, and compare the two. I have it and love it! My biggest gripe with this MSFS Long-EZ from this review is the sounds. They are clearly the default sounds from the FSX Cessna 172, which I was never a big fan of. The exterior sound is great, but the interior sounds nothing like a real Cessna 172 (or anything powered by a Lycoming for that matter). Other than that it looks like a great aircraft. Compared to the Viratvia Long-EZ which has a very clean and "professional-builder" look to it, this MSFS Long-EZ seems to be trying to replicate a Long-EZ that was built by a less-refined builder. Speaking of the Virtavia Long-EZ, I wonder if you can port it over to MSFS.
As I mentioned in an earlier reply here I was also a big fan of Virtavia’s release and it was the first aircraft I attempted to convert for FS2020. I had also done some repaints of it for FSX. No luck so far in the conversion process but may re-visit. Attempting the conversion gave me the urge to fly it so I cranked up FSX for a flight - so hard to go back to FSX graphics now.
I just visited a purchase page for this new version with all intentions of buying. After looking it over again I am on the fence. IMO it is quite a bit inferior to the Virtavia version - especially interior appearance, panel layout, lack of AP, etc.
im guessing the texture for the smudges and scratches on the canopy are supposed to be very transparent
They're not always though... In some lights the evidence of a coke fueled fight with a wolverine are apparent.
@@NOTAM1 man imagine being trapped in a flying glass bubble with hugh jackman
@@lucywucyyy lol
Indeed, interior and sound is key! Of course flight model and systems modelling is critical as well. But I also never go exterior... maybe on the ground, or in the air to take a screenshot but that is it. I will be taking a pass on this one, unfortunately.
Exactly... I understand they want nice exterior models, but I never understood the 90% focus on it when 99% of the time I never see it.
The "magic lift" that is generated when you pull back is an issue in the physics engine. Please report it to Zendesk.
Thanks for the response HackBrett. It's the sim not allowing the Elevator surfaces to be further forward than the Center of Gravity, I just didn't think it was worth jumping into in the review. At the end of the day if the sim doesn't support something that should be a consideration upon releasing a model. Your model either does or doesn't work, why it doesn't work shouldn't matter to the consumer.
sounds like the 172 from fsx
meanwhile the cockpit including the hood is free of scratches and fingerprints.
Cool. But the Long-EZ does not have "delta" wings. It's a swept-wing airplane. Delta wing designs have triangular wing planform, which is clearly not the case on the Long-EZ.
As for the instruments, IMO they are detached from reality not only in the bezels as said in the video, but also the spherical reflections off the glass is totally unrealistic. Airplane instruments are covered under a *_flat_* glass window, which just does not reflect light the way it is rendered in this model, giving us the impression of curved glass instrument windows, which I have yet to see in real life. I find it amusing that the makers would go through the trouble of creating such a detail that in fact detracts from the realism.
Makes sense, I think the curves are an artistic addition to create cool reflections but in real life, this could be life-threatening if I understand you correctly?
@@confuseddad2865 I'm not sure it would be life-threatening, but at the very least it just doesn't look real. I don't get it why the developers would choose to add a feature that not only adds complexity to the design but also detracts from the realism. It would have been easier (and would achieve a better, more believable result) to just cover the instruments with flat-plate glass. Clearly, whoever chose this feature never, ever looked at an aircraft instrument panel up close.
Plus, there isn't anything cooler (IMO) than seeing those crystal clear gauges. Most have an AR coating on them also. Instrument gauges almost look surreal some of them are so clear. It's my biggest gripe with the MB-339 (and I have few gripes).
Where can I get this plane?
simmarket.com
Sim is still broken, default aircraft isn't even fixed completely yet....but simmers have high expectations for aircraft sold under $20 USD. Make that make sense.
Thrown for a Loop isn't something you want to get on a short final.
Exactly.... If I were to guess, the ASI was modeled after someone who painted their own V-speed color arcs on the ASI (which home builts do sometimes) for this or that (loop entry exit speeds or something crazy) as no other pilots share the pit. Not cool though.
A wonderful review as always, so close yet so far as you pointed out. A model desirable for its unique flight characteristics which cannot be correctly modelled? This is a miss. Being transparent about it... well just because you say it sucks out the box because of the limitations of something beyond your control means that perhaps releasing it in this state is not worth it. Why are guys releasing this stuff with low res textures? I think they simply don't understand their current audience at the moment, or maybe they do but if they really sat down and thought about it there would probably be two main categories of buyers.
1. The eagle-eyed simmer who is going to appreciate it from the closest possible zoom levels and treat it like a real aircraft. These guys want to simulate things not see blurry textures or feel flight characteristics which they have not already researched. The sound is another thing my gosh how the heck can the thing not sound like an actual recording and change with the canopy?
2. People who don't mind and will buy it just for a bit of fun but I still don't see this being a large enough user base to make these companies any kind of sustainable revenue which means that the models will be updated, if at all, on a sort of hobby time scale which will not sit well with users in the first category.
The fingerprints, wear, scratches and so on are nice, a little overdone on the canopy but a nice idea. Why take the time to do that to make it feel like a flown in bird but then leave bezels low res?
I owned and flew a LongEZ for 9 years and now own a Cozy IV canard. I have almost 1000 hrs. flying canards and over 1000 landings and takeoffs. I understand that Microsoft has limitations on the physics modeling. It is a very nice 3D model and the canopy is fixed, however it doesn't fly much like a real one. I have never crashed a real canard but crashed this EZ in the sim hundreds of times. Mostly the ground handling is unrealistic. A real canard has a tendency to roll straight on the ground but the virtual one wants to do everything but. It will not go straight and wants to turn right on takeoff. A real canard requires almost no rudder input to stay except in a crosswind. This is because the pusher thrust is almost at the center of the airplane so no P-Factor or torque effects. Also, a real one does not change pitch trim with throttle changes, unlike this model. A LongEZ is probably one of the best flying airplanes ever made so don't get discouraged with the simulator version, nothing flies right in a PC simulation.
I genuinely lol'ed at the wolverine reference. Nice job. It does look overdone, but the in cockpit views actually look ok. Was it ever a problem in flight?
I do think you're being overly critical of the cockpit textures and modelling. Your panning around saying how bad they are, but I can't see what you're talking about. The seats? The wall? They all looked fine to me. You're zooming in so tightly that you can't see all the gauges any more then complaining that you can see that the circles are made up of straight lines. That's so far beyond a normal use case that I don't see the criticism as valid. Would you ever make that view in flight? I think not. A huge part of 3d modelling is to not waste geometry on things that won't be seen in normal use.
Thanks Jon, If this is what you saw during my review then I did my job. My viewers are more than capable of making up their own minds yourself included. At 4k 100 render scaling I can see the gauges have straight lines at normal viewing distances. I'm zooming in for the 50% of the viewers who might watch this on a phone. My criticism is just that, mine. You may not have the same opinion, but that doesn't change its validity.
I'm critical in general so that my viewers can see the worst of everything I'm presenting. No one needs rainbows and unicorn marketing material. They need raw data and information which I give with explanations and allow them to make informed decisions. If I was wrong in the gauges being this or that, I don't mind hearing those criticisms in that regards, but I don't think I'm wrong here. The gauges are not round. I can see that in 4k. I zoom in so you can see that. The textures don't look next gen. These are just facts. I clearly state that this may not hinder your enjoyment of the model as it is less noticeable at standard viewing distances etc, but it doesn't change any of the above facts.
I agree about wasted 3d geometry in general, but I don't buy this argument in this sim. BBS made this argument with the bird dog. I tested the bird dog against the mooney and tbm in developers mode with geometry shown and more than 4x the geometry than the bird dog. I couldn't find a significant difference in frame rate between all three models. In other words, in a model that is displaying 9,000,000 triangles on screen for instance at any given moment, you can't convince me that saving 300 more on bad or good looking gauges was a design decision worth making.
Just my 2 cents.
The biggest issue with MSFS flight models is that Microsoft completely butchered flight models. variables like Canards or number of props were modified nearly out of existence, and the few pieces of the airfile that made it over to the config files though important, were still incomplete. Add to that that the SDK itself has been buggy and lacking documentation and you have a recipe for a very beautiful pile of junk.. Asobo and the third party dev;s around the globe are working as hard as they can to eliminate these deficiencies but we have a long way to go yet, Please bear with us and keep in mind, the sim is new and was pushed out the door long before it was ready. It is getting fixed.
Unfortunately I disagree with quite a bit of this review. It seems overly critical and too in-the-weeds, perhaps even a bit entitled. I've owned and flown a real Long EZ for several years, and I've been a long time sim enthusiast since FS4 back in the day. I actually found this EZ model impressed the heck out of me-- the interior design is incredibly similar to my old EZ and I felt right at home. The exterior is as good or better than any other MSFS plane, truly beautiful. The flight model is close enough, not 100% accurate, but at least 95%, which is way better than half of the stock MSFS aircraft, which I've flown PIC real world (The Extra 330 is almost laughable vs real world). The stall characteristics are close enough to real world, even if MSFS doesn't allow the right mechanics. (If you want aerodynamic accuracy for ANY aircraft, sorry MSFS is the wrong choice.) This is one of the best add-on aircraft I've flown in any MSFS version, and certainly for the price. The flaws pointed out in this review are petty (and obviously not from a real EZ pilot), especially for a unique and beautiful plane modeled from scratch for under $20 for a brand-new platform that doesn't even provide the right development tools for it. I give it 9/10 minimum, excellent development job.
thats dumb that fs20 doesnt support canards, i wouldve thought they wouldve thought of that
Apparently its on Asobo's list of additions promised in the last update but didn't make it.
Interior textures look very dated and look like FS9.
reviewer: i believe it has a lycoming....maybe the flight model is ok "after" i bought it....jeez!
Not sure I understand your issue with either of these things.
Let's just be honest, it looks like shit and is functionally incomplete.