FSD Cirrus 50 Jet - first impressions

[Guest Longyear]

I purchased the FSD Cirrus 50 Jet last night and wanted to give some first impressions to other potential buyers. (Let me say up front that most of my first impressions are positive!)I prey that Ron, Steve and any other developers will refrain form turning this into any sort of policitcal debate, statement, complaint to AVSIM, etc, etc, and suggest that if they suspect they cannot help themselves in doing so, that they stay away from this post.This is about the FSD Cirrus 50 Jet add-on for FSX, from a users perspective, nothing else. Please do not hijack this thread and turn it into a 'D.L.F' (Developers Liberation Front) topic.THANKS ! :( Ok, went through the usual FSD purchase and install routine, which is heavily internet connection dependent, but that's fine and it all worked flawlessly.First thing I noticed is that you only get 1 livery / model with this add-on, which is a little on the tight side. (I've never liked red!) .......... hopefully some more liveries will follow.Next into the VC - which is really quite nice in my opinion. It's an unusual viewpoint / sitting position / MIP configuration and sitting in the cockpit of this jet feels like nothing else out there. Interesting!There isn't a huge amount of detail but I guess this is to do with the design of the Cirrus Jet. There is one stack of buttons on the left hand side, and other than that you have the G1000 screens, a back up screen, the AP buttons and a couple of final buttons on the MIP for engine start, Pitot and flaps.I started up the battery and avionics and immediately noticed that the G1000, whilst firmly being in the 'lite' category, is very readable and ...... wait for it ...... on my system at least, caused absolutely no loss of frames once switched on.I'll cut to the chase and say that this is the frame-rate-friendliest G1000 depiction I have ever used in FSX, I was able to fly it with snow, clouds and traffic, and my FPS never dropped below 28, although I was flying in an areas of photo scenery, so no autogen was a factor.A single button press starts the engine. Engine sounds are nice but flaps and gear sounds are too loud and a bit ugly! I had to pull the headphones away from my ears the first itme I set the flaps!The Cirrus Jet uses a sidestick, which is very nicely animated. however there is no sign of a pitch trim control or indicator. There is a 'pitch' indication on the G1000's MFD but it does not relate to trim, I believe it relates to the elevator position at any given time. So trimming seems to be blind and consequently I did my first take-off with too much nose-up trim and the plane took off on it's own (nice automation LOL!)..... a second attempt with only a touch of NU trim resulted in a much nicer take-off.Hand flying dynaimcs are very nice - quite light - but this is a very, very, light jet, so probably realistic. The G1000 integrated autopilot is not provided, so you're given a 'default' type AP panel but to be fair it works well and all AP functions are set to standard offsets, so ALL KEY COMMANDS AND BUTTON ASSIGNMENTS WORK A TREAT !The problem I felt existed with the FDE was around engine power - far too overpowered on take-off and then lacking in power in other parts of the flight envelope (upper climb). I was also surpised at the AMBER and RED indications on the speed tape - they seem very low. According to these, I cannot exceed 170knts IAS in this bird, which seems odd when it claims to do 300 kts TAS.Anyway, all told, I really quite like this odd little airplane - it makes an interesting change. It is hugely simple to operate and fly but because the real Cirrus Jet is aiming to offer this to, it can feel quite realistic.I would have liked some sort of FADEC limitation, so that when I push the throttles forward, I don't immediately get red EIS indication for N1 and N2 but hey, this is a $26 (

[Walt90 0]

Hi Davido,Thank you for the product review.A few questions if I may. Your statement that all key command and button assignments work, if I read you correctly, is referring to the autopilot? The reason I ask, I sent FSD a pre-sale support question regarding keyboard command support. It was not answered other than they did not understand what I was asking. Can you comment on keyboard command support for the whole aircraft, that is, G1000, lighting, etc? Thanks.

[Guest Longyear]

Hi Davido,Thank you for the product review.A few questions if I may. Your statement that all key command and button assignments work, if I read you correctly, is referring to the autopilot? The reason I ask, I sent FSD a pre-sale support question regarding keyboard command support. It was not answered other than they did not understand what I was asking. Can you comment on keyboard command support for the whole aircraft, that is, G1000, lighting, etc? Thanks.

Hi Walt,You're absolutely right, I was referring to keyboard assignment of the AP controls, so things like assigning a button or knob to NAV, HDG, ALT, VS, Heading Bug, Alt Knob, VS knob , etc, all work just fine with the AP in this aircraft.For your other keyboard assignments, what I would say is that functionally, this new plane is heavily based of standard or default FS aircraft operation. So whilst the model, VC, etc, is above what you get in the default aircarfts, most other functions work exactly as they do in default aircraft. Lighing certainly works exactly as per default aircraft, so if you have a key or button assigned to 'Landing Light' then yes, it will switch on or off the landing lights on the FSD Cirrus.I did not check to see if the default FSX G1000 commands work on the FSD Cirrus's G1000, gut instinct tells me that unless it actually is the default FSX G1000 that the commands would not work.However I will test this for you in the next hour and report back.When considering the FSD Cirrus Jet again I'd say (i) remember that it's a $26 add-on, (ii) other than that it's good fun, frame rates seem excellent, and because it uses a lot of default stuff, it also seems pretty bullet-proof and reliable.Davido.

[Guest Longyear]

Walt,I have just checked and yes, all of the default FSX G1000 key commands appear to work with the G1000 in the Cirrus Jet. I would therefore suspect that the Cirrus's G1000 is either the default FSX G1000, or heavily based on it. neither is a problem for me, and I suspect this is the answer you were hoping for. :( I wonder why FSD did not understand your question - it seemed perfectly clear and reasonable to me. Regards,David

[Walt90 0]

Hi David,Again, thank you for the information.If you have the time, could please check a few other aircraft systems such as Master Battery, Generators, Avionics Master. I have a few GoFlight units that I would like to use so I can either use default FSX commands or keyboard commands.What's your impression of the G1000 MFD? Is it strictly default FSX or are there other Pages and Groups modeled? Default FSX navdata? I noticed a picture on the FSD site which shows the interior, looking forward from the real seating area. It appears the left seat is not centered on the PFD. The seat is to the left of PFD center. Seems odd not to be directly in front of your primary flight instruments. Any idea if that is true for the real jet?

[Tim_FSD 0]

Hi David,Again, thank you for the information.If you have the time, could please check a few other aircraft systems such as Master Battery, Generators, Avionics Master. I have a few GoFlight units that I would like to use so I can either use default FSX commands or keyboard commands.What's your impression of the G1000 MFD? Is it strictly default FSX or are there other Pages and Groups modeled? Default FSX navdata? I noticed a picture on the FSD site which shows the interior, looking forward from the real seating area. It appears the left seat is not centered on the PFD. The seat is to the left of PFD center. Seems odd not to be directly in front of your primary flight instruments. Any idea if that is true for the real jet?

The left seat is centered squarely in from of the PFD. I know it is difficult to tell by some of the screenshots.Your GoFlight units will not have a problem with this aircraft. It is completely compatible with external hardware.Keep the blue on top!Tim DickensFlightSim Developers

The problem I felt existed with the FDE was around engine power - far too overpowered on take-off and then lacking in power in other parts of the flight envelope (upper climb). I was also surpised at the AMBER and RED indications on the speed tape - they seem very low. According to these, I cannot exceed 170knts IAS in this bird, which seems odd when it claims to do 300 kts TAS.Anyway, all told, I really quite like this odd little airplane - it makes an interesting change. It is hugely simple to operate and fly but because the real Cirrus Jet is aiming to offer this to, it can feel quite realistic.I would have liked some sort of FADEC limitation, so that when I push the throttles forward, I don't immediately get red EIS indication for N1 and N2 but hey, this is a $26 (

[Walt90 0]

Well Tim, here is another case of FSD not answering or selectively answering questions. I asked if the MFD included pages and groups other than what is in the default FSX G1000 MFD and if the navdata is default to FSX. No reply from FSD.Ok, you wrote that the SF50 is "completely compatible with external hardware". Can you expand on that? Can all of the aircraft's systems (that is functions controlled by switches, buttons, knobs or axis) be assigned to a keyboard command or axis?I'm interested in your SF50 but need questions answered first.

[Tim_FSD 0]

Well Tim, here is another case of FSD not answering or selectively answering questions. I asked if the MFD included pages and groups other than what is in the default FSX G1000 MFD and if the navdata is default to FSX. No reply from FSD.Ok, you wrote that the SF50 is "completely compatible with external hardware". Can you expand on that? Can all of the aircraft's systems (that is functions controlled by switches, buttons, knobs or axis) be assigned to a keyboard command or axis?I'm interested in your SF50 but need questions answered first.

I'm sorry you felt that I was trying to evade any questions. That was certainly not my intention.The NAV data is the default FS X data, as are the pages and groups will be pretty much the same. These are asically very much like the default G 1000 displays with the addition of some customizing and data specifically formatted for what the Vision would incorporate.Tim DickensFlightSim Developers

[snave 0]

Just another quick thankyou to Davido for the early review. I would say the very essence of the modern VLJ is the integration of the avionics, comms and navigation as a simple-to-operate yet complex system and while I can fully understand the need to meet a price point the choice to do so by omitting the very systemology that gives the VLJ it's market penetration potential and rely on the known faulty FS default programming is a bit disheartening. For the money I was hoping for WAAS capability, synthetic vision and at least a modest simulcrum of a pilot, rather than the dwarf half-scale version used, making the aircraft look completely `wrong` in the screenshots I have seen. Otherwise what is the point in modelling the Cirrus Vision at all?

[Tim_FSD 0]

Just another quick thankyou to Davido for the early review. I would say the very essence of the modern VLJ is the integration of the avionics, comms and navigation as a simple-to-operate yet complex system and while I can fully understand the need to meet a price point the choice to do so by omitting the very systemology that gives the VLJ it's market penetration potential and rely on the known faulty FS default programming is a bit disheartening. For the money I was hoping for WAAS capability, synthetic vision and at least a modest simulcrum of a pilot, rather than the dwarf half-scale version used, making the aircraft look completely `wrong` in the screenshots I have seen. Otherwise what is the point in modelling the Cirrus Vision at all?

The kind of custom programming for the avionics you are referring to is simply not going to be possible in a $26 aircraft. We are working on a more sophisticated G 1000 system which should be available sometime next year, that will be at an additional cost. Keep in mind that the displays on the Vision are "sized to spec", meaning that they can easily accommodate one of the custom avionics packages available online. While the $40+ price tag of such units may not be attractive to many simmers, if you want this level of realism the extra cost is unavoidable.As far as the pilot model goes this is not a complaint we have heard before. The screenshots themselves are being continually updated, but keep in mind that you really can't see the pilot from the camera perspective in many of these shots.Tim DickensFlightSim Developers

[snave 0]

Thanks for the comments Tim, I used the screenshots referred to from your website for comparison with the gallery shots from Cirrus themselves. From side-by-side comparisons it is obvious that the pilot figure is way too small unless the Vision is certified for an eight year old to fly.I suggest revisiting this using Cirrus' own drawing, found on their website http://cirrusaircraft.com/vision/slides/default.htmlFifth slide in should enable you to correct the pilot size as will some of the other slide pics, gallery shots or even the video.While you are there I would also recommend:1: Looking at the undercarriage arrangement. Your pictures show an artifically high `sit` for the aircraft which does not exist in reality.2: You should also revisit the degree of gloss on the upper surface of the wings. Cirrus are renowned for the high-gloss surfaces and the almost mirror-like surface finish they achieve contribute much to the overall performance of the wing. The paint is clearly bright white, rather than dingy grey. None of the screenshots, either on your site or the other seem to show the correct degree of sheen, so one assumes this is a modelling fault.3: The wing/fuselage `cuff` appears to be from the earlier prototype, not the current version. As a result the wing appears too low against the line of the fuselage, making the aircraft seem more corpulent than it actually is.All of these things simply destroy the illusion for me, and I'm astonished it wasn't picked up by the beta testers. I guess the selection criteria has changed from my day?Accessory-wise, not sure what extras this aircraft is fitted with as the website fails to specify - is there a load manager? Chocks and flags? Certainly this is one aircraft where it would be a bloody good idea to plug the intake when it's not in use! The absence of notofication on extra features does rather suggest their absence. And that is NOT excusable in a an FSD product, no matter the price.All in all my personal opinion - in these parsimonious times - is that this is not yet ready for my hard-earned. Nothing personal, but you cannot use the excuse: "What do you expect for the money?" without researching what it is we expect for it... It's not good enough as it stands for me to part with recession-hit luxury spend when competitors (and you do have competitors) are shipping better, more feature-laden product for the same or less money.However, if these things are corrected then it might make a nice hop-up from my usual prop diet, even lacking the `systemology`.

[Walt90 0]

This is getting painful but I seem to be getting somewhere with my questions. My appologies to those having to re-read my questions. Even though English is my native language, I apparently have a problem communicating my concerns and/or questions to the developer.Maybe I'm missing something and please let me know if I am, should I be "reading between the lines" from the developer's lack of a reply? What I mean is, does no reply to my question mean NO to the question? See, now I'm even getting confused.Maybe FSD just wants me to purchase the product for twenty plus dollars and find the answers myself. I guess I could always un-install the aircraft and delete the file once I find out for myself that it doesn't meet my needs.Well FSD, does the aircraft include complete system control without the mouse or not?

[ryanbatc 12,935]

Hats off to FSD for creating something not even flying on a production basis. That's always tougher to do than modeling/programming something where you have hard data to work with. I've watched this aircraft for its first flight in the real world, and I watch it whenever Cirrus flies it at work. It is a speedy little thing on takeoff, so if the engines appear to be overpowered in the FSX model I'd say FSD got it right. But it can also fly quite slow, because it sometimes flies in formation with another SR22. I'm not sure about the higher altitude performance. I've watched it on the radar at FL240 and it seems to go about 250-280kts gnd speed while they do testing work - if they are even up that high. So about the 170 indicated comment - depending on altitude, that speed may be fairly close to correct.

[David Roch 1,982]

This is getting painful but I seem to be getting somewhere with my questions. My appologies to those having to re-read my questions. Even though English is my native language, I apparently have a problem communicating my concerns and/or questions to the developer.Maybe I'm missing something and please let me know if I am, should I be "reading between the lines" from the developer's lack of a reply? What I mean is, does no reply to my question mean NO to the question? See, now I'm even getting confused.Maybe FSD just wants me to purchase the product for twenty plus dollars and find the answers myself. I guess I could always un-install the aircraft and delete the file once I find out for myself that it doesn't meet my needs.Well FSD, does the aircraft include complete system control without the mouse or not?

Walt please relax.No, FSD team doesn't want you to purchase their product and find the answer yourself.I know the guys enough to know that this is not their philosophy.They have a forum where they answer nicely to customers and they don't spend their time here.

[Walt90 0]

Yes, I do know they have a forum David. At this present point, I am not wanting to register at another forum just to ask a question. As I mentioned above, I sent them a direct support question from within their site. They didn't answer my question there either.I do appreciate your concern. Thanks.