Jump to content


X-Plane Fan
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dionsol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/02/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Palmdale, Ca. USA
  • Interests
    Flight Simulation, Flight

Recent Profile Visitors

1316 profile views
  1. I really need the X-Plane Evektor EV-55, but i need some changes to go with it.


    1)  Need at least 9 passenger seats...can be with or without several passengers.

    2)  Need custom paint job

    3)   What progress has been made and/or on the logo light on the tail?  needs to be placed about half way from the vertical stabilizer on the underside, to create sort of an oval on the vertical stabilizer.


    I'll buy as soon as these items are adopted in the Evektor EV-55



  2. Question, how fast are you going. because of the design of the model, the most that I've found you can go is between 180 to 195 Knots (IAS). with the 1.1 ver. Also be aware for the wind. I found head wind, tail wind it doesn't matter, GS at 220 is about all it will go. Any thing more than that, behavior a cures as you stated. Hope this will help Dion PS: remember this is not a fast aircraft like the MU2. You have to treat her a bit different.
  3. Great review as always And yes it is an awesome plane for the money, there is no doubt/ self plug youtube: dionm01 Flights in it, flying around Cheers Dion
  4. Hi Dionsol


    Thanks for the feedback, and I totally agree with you on your comments on the G1000, yes it is slow, yes it kills framerate and yes I hate that map rotation...  Overall again as you mentioned the Eclipse is just that little better at the moment.


    But I will note that the G1000 bugs are not correct as well. There seems that something has gone wrong here as more than a problem with the G1000. It was like this when originally released, but Carenado fixed it, but now it is back to that same position it was a year ago? Personally I think it will be fixed pretty quickly and the aircraft will then be fine, I personally would have stuck with it a bit longer, as it would have been very good in the long run.


    I looked at your video, and I don't think it was a poor review...  believe me there are far, far worse out there. Thanks for the interest...  Stephen

    1. Stephen


      Hi, If you are ever interested in writing reviews then give me a call...  always interested.


      Best regards Stephen

  5. This was taken from another post thread I commented on. I felt this was relevant to this topic as well. Wow, I was not aware that the Carenado G1000 does not have SIDS and Stars integrated into the system. Thank you very much for the heads up, and that explains why when I was coming to approach at one of my flights, there was no procedures for me to use to follow RNAV to the runway. Personally just yesterday ( April.12.2017) as of this post, I did buy the Phenom 100 for the looks of the airplane and the reputation of a Carenado product. But after playing around with the aircraft briefly stated above, I quickly realized the missteps that the product has. First off besides stated briefly above, the quality image textures are vintage 2014, 2015 2K textures which I will say are not bad but we are in 2017 with 4K. But this is not a deal breaker but I was willing to overlook this blemish. A lot of the sounds I noticed in the aircraft were similar to the Beechcraft 1900D that I own. So Reusing existing assets is not a deal breaker as well but a bit of a letdown. But the biggest in glaring issue that force me to ask for my money back from the Xplane.org store was the G1000 itself. Based on my experience of the Skyview via the epic 1000, the G1000 is very cumbersome to use to the point where frustration sets in and you're better off using outside utilities to cut and paste your routes out of sky vector and convert them into FMS files and then loading them into the navigation system. The G1000 did not flow very well at all. You need a very well thought out workflow avionics system so the pilot spends less time trying to find things or figure things out. And spend more time in doing what we like to do best, and that is fly. The whole purpose of a glass cockpit is the ease of use. We live in the information, electronic age, not the mechanical, industrial age. Because of these failings, regrettably I requested a refund and settled on the Eclipse 550 NG. Now to be fair, I have already have experience with the Skyview navigation system because of the epic 1000. When I bought the Phenom 100, I was expecting the same kind of ease of use as the Skyview but in a different way, and didn't mine that as long as the end result was the same. But sadly I was mistaken. The flight dynamics of the aircraft are good and I really enjoyed the flight model itself while I had it. Also the looks from a distance looks really good too. The interior was very nice with no complaints, I enjoyed the fact the lights were on gamble's which I felt was a nice touch. Couldn't get the tables to work if there was tables for the aircraft. From anesthetics point of view, the aircraft is pleasing a look at and flies well. But as we all know, that is only half of the experience. The other half is that the pilot needs to have fun, and sadly I have to say the G1000 falls short tremendously. Because of this, I'm on the fence for me to buy any G1000 products in the future because of the before mentioned G1000 issues as stated above. No Stationair with the G1000, no TBM850, Kodiak Quest G1000 and the list goes on. All these products are products I would love to have and purchase over time. So what is the resolution: on paper it is simple, create a better workflow environment which in turn creates ease of use for the G1000. Make all actions with a G1000 clickable with the mouse (IE.… Touch screen interface, simulated). Maybe RE-brand the product as the G3000 which is a touch screen platform. It's up to the developer to decide, but it is up to us the paying consumer if we choose to buy the products they produce. It's really simple, give us what we want, and we have no problem in paying for it. Now I know Carenado has spent a lot of Time & Resources to develop the G1000 avionics package as it is, but from my point of view and others that I've read in the past, they really need to review the product and make it better. Time will tell if the developer is willing to put in the effort to it and make their existing products and future products better. We shall see Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-plane 11 Pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast PS: if you want to see somebody fail in trying to do a review of this aircraft my Twitch channel here https://www.twitch.tv/videos/135249607 part 2 https://www.twitch.tv/videos/135248755
  6. Fabio, Great post, I cannot agree with you more in all points that you brought up. I was articulating my own post but after reading yours you kinda summed it up for me which made it that I didn't have to. Thank you For me I'm looking at the big picture, wanting to get is many new people into flight simulation which I feel is the onramp to the real thing. I do not treat flight simulation as a "toy", I treated as a learning tool. I find, I'm always learning something new every day, every time I get behind a simulated cockpit of something no matter what it is. So keeping costs low would allow a wider audience of new users/customers to come into the fold for flight simulation products, to me this is paramount. And as you said in your post, you got out of real aviation because of the cost. This is what I do not want to happen to flight simulation industry. Cost is the number one evil that keeps us aviation enthusiasts from reaching our dreams. Putting up a high barrier of entry of quality products discourages new customers in buying your product. We live in an era that most people do not have generous amounts of disposable income like the average person had in the past (from an American perspective I should say). So when a product is high and there's other products out there that are comparable the discerning customer will go to the least path of resistance (money wise). I could go on and on and start muddying up the waters. So in closing I just want say Fabio, I appreciate it. Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast
  7. If you decide to buy the plane then that's great for you, I hope you enjoy it. Everybody has different reasons, in what they want and that is good. After I did the math for me, I felt it wasn't worth it at this time. I'm I going to sit here and say I'll never buy it in the future, No. But to be true to my convictions, I put my money where my mouth is and yesterday bought the X-Crafts E-175 instead for $34.95 USD. For me that aircraft was a better economical fit. But to each his own, best of luck to you and your endeavors. Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast Youtuber: Youtube.com/user/dionm01 PS: if you do decide to purchase the aircraft please drop us a line and let us know what you think. The community comments are always welcomed and encouraged. Building a community, one person at a time.
  8. Thank you sir for the interaction, it is most appreciated. Is good to see the developers interact with the customers. Best of luck to you and your fellow team members on your future endeavors. Maybe one day, who knows what the future will hold. Dion
  9. Thank you Ricardo for your response is greatly appreciated. I'm glad that you will make the files available for users such as myself. I hope sales for you are well, but as I stated above I really feel strongly that the price point was over the top. If anything it should have been competitive with X crafts product. From an outsider or a new person coming in to the simulation, who is a budget conscious individual. Would look at both aircraft and would more than likely choose X-craft product over yours. And that is sad because as a longtime users your product I would not want to see sales taken away from the hard work that you put into the product. Best of luck to you sir and hope all is well. As a side note, regrettably at this point in less the price point is altered, I too am also leaning towards the X crafts version over yours. And I want to stress it's not because you made a bad product, that is contrary to the truth. It's just that price matters when you are on a budget and have limited resources to spend your simulation dollars on. Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 Pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast
  10. Hello Stephen, Thank you very much for your review and it is greatly appreciated for users such as myself who are discerning customers. At this point in time, I'm an owner of the Embraer 170 original, regrettably I'll have to pass on this aircraft. The reason is simple, "they overprice the aircraft". Yes I know this is subjective and you've got the early adopters wanting the "new shiny" and willing to pay the high price that it is. That is fine if they want to spend their money that way, that's their business. But for me who is a conscious buyer, I was put off by the price point and was expecting the price to be right around $34.95 which seems to be the normal pattern at the X-Plane.org store. The aircraft to me based on the promotional video did not visually seem to be overly better than the one that I already have as far is a visual appearance inside the cockpit is concern. Now outside the cockpit however, yes it does look better than what I have (and it should). With the concerns that you said in your review even brings me to more pause in purchasing the aircraft. Yes I get the $10.00 discount which is cool but the price point after discount should've been $24.95. Then I feel it would've been justified. At the current price point, I'm still paying $39.99 which is $5.00 more than the X-craft 175. If anything, if someone does the simple math this is going to drive the sales for X-craft 175 over the E170 which is a shame. For me I was looking forward to this aircraft and did have conversations with Ricardo in the past about the aircraft. So getting my expectations up for the aircraft and then the price point happened and killed it for me. To add insult to injury, my existing aircraft files on my account at the X-Plane.org store had been removed so me as a customer will no longer have access to the backups in case of unforeseen event that would lose something that you paid for. This puts me as a customer at risk which is disappointing. The resolution to this problem would have been simple by just taking the old models (E170 & the E190) that I have purchased and downgraded them to the download section at X-Plane.org so I would have least still have access to the files if a unforeseen event happened. Removing something that I have purchased was not the thing to do. So in summing up 2 errors happened, the aircraft is overpriced, and removing something that I paid for was removed from access in the future. This is not cool and not good business. As a side note I was expecting the old files to be removed from the store and not for purchase but what I paid for to remain on my X-Plane.org account. I know the files are old, but to me that does not matter because they're functional. I am using the aircraft as of this post with XPflier.net which is an economy program similar to FS economy. The E170 & E190 aircraft are featured and that economy module aircraft list for users to purchase during their pilots career using XPflier.net. I can go on and on my disappointment which would end up boring you to tears. The community's comments are always welcome Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast Youtube: https://youtube.com/user/dionm01 PS: All comments and concerns were expressed as of July 25, 2016 at 6:21 AM PDT. Things will change as you now
  11. After reading your article, you are exactly on point with your review. I have also been a fan of the Twin Otter and after I purchased the aircraft I can say as well, that my purchase was not a waste. Allowing me to go places where I wouldn't normally go (i.e.… With floats) has brought a new avenue in exploring X-Plane. Here we are setting at version 1.2 however, I would say that RW designed still needs to tweak the aircraft to make it a more robust product. The biggest glaring issue that I have found in the float plane configuration not allowing the GPS to control your route. Basically I ended up programming the GPS and just use the heading bug to fly me around the route that I programmed into the GPS. The other variations of the aircraft when it comes to the GPS seems to work as normal with the CDI switch working. I noticed in the X-Plane forums that people have reached out to the developer to address this issue and at one point, Rob Wilson the developer said he would take a look at it. That was on the 18th of January 2016, but still the issue has not been fixed which has been some time now. This is troubling to me, I've noticed a pattern with developers whether it be X-Plane Products or MS flight simulator platform (FSX,FSXSE, and so on). That some developers get complacent and rest on their laurels and not provide updates in a timely manner which in turn makes their products obsolete overtime. I would love to see the developers take the initiative and add DLC content to their existing aircraft. As an example: I would be more than willing to pay with my money and upgrade to this aircraft with the glass cockpit configuration. Basically what a real world pilot owner or company would do in keeping their aircraft freshly updated with the latest technology if they choose to do so. Can you imagine, (if you are a glass cockpit guy such as myself) having a GXXXX glass cockpit configuration with all the bells and whistles including whether, traffic following me map and other features that glass cockpit panels of today provides. Again as any end user, I would be more than willing to pay for these features as DLC content. But, that's just me I guess, I have no problem giving the developer more money which in turn provides me as the end user a more robust product for me to enjoy. Within financial reason of course. I see the market will dictate developers abuses if they hold back, too aggressively . Anyway, back to the other glaring problem I noticed was switching out between NAV 1 and NAV 2 sources I have to use XHSI 2.0 beta 8 ( a free standalone addon) which is a glass cockpit application on another computer to facilitate source swapping functions. Regrettably the model does not have a source switching capability that I have found yet. There was a document created by Jean-Claude Meunier, on 21 Mar 2015 posted and depicts the switch to the right of the radios. With version 1.2, that's switch does not exist. So to sum up, All in all, this is a great aircraft and I'm enjoying flying it to this day, Other than muddling through issues as stated above. Keep up the great work in looking forward to next review on a product that I find of interest. Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 Pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast
  12. Thank you sir for your feedback, yeah if the Stationair CT206H would have had floats, this aircraft would have been the perfect aircraft to suit my mission needs without question. I was looking for an aircraft of this model type that would have the G1000 implemented along with HD quality that I've come to expect from Carenado. So now I am at a quandary with the two models that you referenced. Because I favor glass cockpits over steamed gauges, I'm kinda in a rock and a hard place with what is offered with X-Plane to this point. As you stated, I can go with one of the two you mentioned or just get the twin otter that has skis, floats, tundra wheels and others. But still class cockpit configuration eludes me. I wanted to produce videos from time to time for my youtube channel that would be up in the Sierra Nevada mountains here in California along with other waterways in the western part of the US. So obviously a float plane would be needed. Decisions decisions decisions, less somebody could build some floats for the 206 or the 182T that would be awesome. but I don't think that will happen anytime soon. Thanks again for your feedback is most appreciated Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 Pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast https://www.youtube.com/user/Dionm01
  13. Hello everyone I thought I would reach out to the community in ask, does the Stationair CT206H have floats that come with the aircraft when you buy it from the X-Plane.org store. I am interested in buying the aircraft along with the G1000 update Expansion pack if the aircraft comes with floats. Basically I'm looking for an High quality aircraft that has floats. And I noticed the description on X-Plane.org store for this aircraft says it can have floats. It be a most appreciated if anyone can answer this question or if there is an third party add on that works with the aircraft. Please let me know and I appreciate it very much Dion Markgraf AKA: Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 10 pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast
  14. Thank you SD for your timely response. And I appreciate in what you stated. I think all of us as X-Plane pilots are hoping for a product that we can interact with the ATC as smoothly as possible and realistically as possible. Most of the arguments centered around that topic generally end up being "use VATSIM". And a lot of us if we wanted to use that service, we would have been using it already and that conversation would not be happening. I guess I'm just on the fence of traffic generation quick and easy so there's more time spent in the air flying than having to set up the world around you. I have no problem with setting the world around you, just for me I am more in the camp of loading up X-Plane and let's go. I guess it's because I've become an old SOB, and just want to enjoy flight and all the things that are involved when you're in the cockpit. Again thank you very much for the timely response, and I'll be keeping an eye on the product once it comes out and by that time we shall see the features ahead of us in what can be done with the product. Dionsol
  15. Hello everyone, After attempting to read the review, it seems to be a very complex program. And gives me the impression that me as the in user has to do a lot of work to set it up . That is cool, if you like that sort of thing. Because I'm a potential customer for the product, I've got a couple of questions. My premise is on simplicity, so my questions are simple and in my mind set is in the context of a general aviation pilots perspective and all the procedures there in. 1. Does the product auto generate traffic so me as the end user does not have too. I say this in the context of, I want to start X-Plane get in my aircraft be directed to the active runway ,takeoff. Request flight following (VFR scenario) fly to my destination or be directed away from restricted areas or ATC gives me a approval or for transitioning through airspaces of any kind. 2. Does the program have the ATC tells me to change frequencies like they do in the real world ground, tower, approach, Center and be directed accordingly to avoid hitting other aircraft . Sorry that was kinda redundant from the previous question. 3. With IFR scenario can you on the fly change course, increase altitude or decrease altitude Which would have a fact on AI Aircraft generated. . 4. Does the products have a windows installer where it will put all the necessary files for the program to work out of the box in their proper places. Again, simplicity is King. If the product does things like this as mentioned you have my money and I would buy it, in a heartbeat. Again, I appreciate complexity, but for me as I stated above, I just want to start X-Plane and fly. I'm just looking for ATC interaction that we currently do not have with X-Plane. And having extra aircraft flying around which appears this product does, that is a good thing but in an auto generated capacity would be the way to go. Thank you all for taking the time to read this, and look forward for everyone's feedback. Dionsol "There's an old saying" Keep it simple and the product last forever, make it too complex and becomes too difficult and tedious to manage.