Jaggyroad Films

Thanks! I try to use different kinds of music for the variation in people's preferences. It also forces me to edit differently, which is a great thing to be able to do.

I haven't had too many issues with EZDok that weren't easily remedied. I can't recommend it enough. He also made a freeware program called EZWalk some years back that you can still find. It has some similar functions. Both programs can be a bit hard to use mind you. This biggest issue I've had with EZDok is the developer disappeared. Not much support IF you do have issues. The community seems to have hashed most if them out though.

Hah. Thanks. It seems SteveFX's product isn't for sale anymore, but that's what I'm using to get such smooth graphics. I can now enable bloom and several other features that I have traditionally kept off. It made the sim silky smooth for me and seems to be running quite stable.

Oh! Gotcha. No, that was a ray effect, with a small lense effect added. Initially I wasn't going to do that shot, but the effect was so powerful, I kept it. Just some post production magic. :D

Thanks gentlemen. Light coming through the windows? I don't follow mate. The forest fire would probably look much the same, regardless of DX10. It's from the Orbx KWYS scenery as an option. And yessir, I am using EZDok. Shame it doesn't seem to be supported anymore, as there were some new features I was extremely excited about.

This project is a little hard to explain, as it carries some personal weight in a way. If you're curious, just head to YouTube and read the description. Regardless, enjoy the amazing graphics. I hope you guys like it. Here is the video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEXJO-g_sVU

I need to be clear that I do not speak officially on A2A's behalf in this regard. I only occasionally contract for them for video production. So, the wording that A2A has been using since 2007 (BEFORE any other lighting system) is hogwash? I'm not looking to argue here, but perhaps it seems a bit more "hogwash" that you made an assumption. The C172 was the very first aircraft in A2A's lineup that used the "Lotus" style lights. I'm defending a company who has been using this term since before you bought your first Accusim product from them, and before any other alternative lighting effect was available. I made my point, and I don't have anything further to add on on this particular subject. _____________________________________________________________________ Moving on, I'm glad to see so many people are enjoying the aircraft. I'm seeing a lot of positive comments from people, and I myself find this bird to be thoroughly enjoyable. Not a big fan of the red interiors, as I generally just have a preference for blue. Perhaps that makes me in the minority, but I'm already seeing several members are working on major cockpit repaints that look to drastically change what is available, thus giving people even more options! To me, it's a very exciting time to fly simulators. _____________________________________________________________________ Folks, make sure to balance your tanks while flying. Not doing so could cause the severe imbalance that you guys mentioned. The fuel selector is located against the cockpit wall, near the floor, on the left side. Unlike the 172R, there is not an option to feed from both tanks.

I can't answer that, but I can guess. It may have been done because of workload, or since it wasn't already built with it they didn't see a need to add it considering the problems introduced before. With the 172, it was originally built into the model at release, and it was necessary to remove because of the aforementioned problems. After removing it, it probably didn't add much to the workload to make it an option. It's really best to let one of the team members answer that, if they feel so inclined. To add, however, I think a lot of people don't appreciate the work that goes into these models, and the balancing act of performance. During testing on the 172, this issue wasn't captured, even with the excessive testing done by the team. When released however, due to the large population of people who purchased it, it quickly became a nightmare for the team that required significant cooperation with other development teams. Although it was a small minority of people who reported the issue, there were enough people with it that all other worked stopped as the entire team worked to address it. It wasn't just an A2A problem, in reality, it was a development community problem as many other developers were working through the issue themselves. It is my understanding that through this cooperation, A2A was able to find the problem and address it. I would imagine nobody at A2A wants to touch this with a ten foot pole.

Just wanted to comment on this and clarify some things. First, let it be known I know the guys at A2A Simulations quite well, as well as worked closely with Mike "Lotus" in the past in video collaborations, etc. 3D lights, as A2A advertises them, have been around since I did the promo video for the Wings of Power II B-17 back in March 2007 (which were built into the model), and then released as a stand alone product known as 3D Lights, which was later upgraded to 3D Lights Redux. These are cone light effects, and are different from the "Lotus" lights. The "Lotus" illumination lights were introduced with the L-39 back in August 2009. They allowed illumination of the ground, and do not include the 3D cone that was previously aforementioned. Unfortunately, it was found that in some cases, the "Lotus" style lights could cause the nefarious "clickspot" issue found, not allowing people to click on anything inside the cockpit. A few have found this issue with the L-39, and it was later found in several other aircraft as well. Unfortunately, Mike has been absent from the scene for years. Further, since it was so rare, few knew what the culprit was. This was why it was omitted from the Cherokee, and made as an option for the 172 (although it is default as off). So, advertising 3D lights is NOT advertising those illumination lights, and the term was around a lot longer before the "Lotus" style lights were introduced. I think it's fair to say they have not been trying to mislead anybody, and their terminology is correct. Perhaps pedantic, but I think it's important to give credit to the correct developers where it is due. A lot of companies have switched between the various lighting systems, so it's important to keep track of who developed what.

I don't recall it being the same person(s), but I could be wrong. If, however, you're using the Twotter Extended, you may be very disappointed going back to the older Beaver. That aircraft was one of the very first addons made for FSX, and she's starting to show her age. That being said, the package is extremely extensive and offers a TON of variants.

A thought... is everyone running fullscreen versus windowed?

There is no 2D cockpit layout, just 2D popups.

Michael at Jaggyroad Films decided to create something the other day for Memorial Day. We're a bit late posting this as we ran into a few technical issues along the way, but here it is. We hope you like it.

There are tons of channels dedicated to this sort of thing. Cessna154 for example. I have made over 100+ commercial videos on my channel alone, most FS products for companies that were paying for my services. It's a hard niche, and further the industry seems a bit stagnant at the moment with little interest from outside the hobby. It could be done, but you're going to have to do what all of us that proceed you have done, invest a lot of time and energy into it to make it successful.

Sorry, not buying this. I've worked with Iris for years, and they have always payed me for projects I was involved in. They have even helped me when I was in a pinch. I'm not knowledgeable on this particular situation, and even if I was I wouldn't be airing the laundry here. Regardless, I'm sure there is more to the story than what meets the eye. I consider David and Karen close friends and have trusted them as such for years. I STRONGLY disagree with your opinion, and vehemently so. I can assure you Iris in previous situations acted in their best and legal interest to protect themselves from those wishing to do harm to the company or who were not delivering results that they had paid for. I thoroughly dislike this type of sentiment being displayed openly, especially considering Iris has been nothing but a pleasant experience in all the years I have been with them. I speak as an independent marketing contractor, and if I ever felt something hinky was up I would have left a long time ago. There are many companies that have lulled me into a false sense of security or tried to rip me off, Iris is NOT one of them.