(Ouff, did not expect to write such a long reply for my first post here, but maybe someone will find the following information useful)
To answer the questions,
Yes I am really psyched about them and yes I'm way beyond "they are ok for what they are"
Here's my story (and some ski reviews lol),
My first pair was some OAC WAP 127, I wonder if I ever used my snowshoes again after trying that
Got some OAC 147 with 3 pin bindings and hard shell tele boots shortly after, started using them more and more for cross country skiing and backcountry touring, I haven't used cross country skis since, and for backcountry/touring less and less my telemark setup
with 3 pin bindings and hard boots, I think the concept of those is simply amazing, they will never excel at anything but will be good at everything
At 6'1 (190lbs) I've always wanted longer ones for more stability, speed and 'maybe' a bit more grip for going up
This is when everything changed for me, I got a pair of OAC XCD GT 160, and I was disappointed, these skis did not float as much in powder (I would even say they are sinkers) and had less grip going up, should have known, they are XCD skis after all
The year after, OAC came out with the XCD BC 160 - that was it, right? still 160, much wider, better sidecut, more camber, proportionally larger skin area, etc... These are absolutely the worst skis there can be, they are good at nothing and I mean nothing. We are very very far from "a ski that can do everything pretty well", they don't go up (no grip whatsoever), they are way way too stiff, kick and glide could be good with that much stiffness, but no, the width makes them very unstable etc...
Meanwhile every once in a while I come across people with Altai Hoks (145cm), they always have more grip on the way up than OAC people and seem to have as much fun going down, I know they have the KOM also, a longer ski with fish scales, and after seeing the videos of Lo-Fi, temptation is high but unless I get to try them first, I don't want to risk another buy and be disappointed... after all, these are still XCD's
I want WIDE, maximum FLOAT and MAJOR GRIP, honestly speed is not that important for me, and having a skin on steep downhills trough trees I actually kind of appreciate lol
So I decided to make my own, bought a used pair of women's powder skis (Rossignol S7 168) and before pulling out the router, I played around with 3 to 4 stick-on cross country skins per skis to figure best placement and surface area and it turned out pretty awesome, at this point I'd say I was very close, a bit more gliding resistance on flats but just a bit, I ended never using the router just leaving the stick-ons, - this was good enough
The year after, wanting to improve on the concept of WIDE, FLOAT, MORE GRIP, and now looking for less resistance when gliding, I got a cnc machine, built a jig, bought Line 110 women's powder skis, quality skins and the result is now exactly what I've always wanted
With those, touring is awesome, I don't have to put on or take off skins, I can now climb pretty much everything others climb with full skins and have a blast going down especially in deep powder with a very light setup
But wait, Altai skis just came out with the TAO, 165, fairly large and that reputation of being the best at climbing, so I was not able to resist, I received them last week, and was only able to try them for 30 minutes. Initial impressions are: amazing build quality, very light, grip was equal (with last Saturday snow conditions here in Quebec) to the Rossi's, not as much float and a little harder to turn but it's too early to tell.
Shorter and wider skis with permanent skins that can glide well, that are longer than regular skishoes, that are not XCD's...
How about calling this FATSKINNING !
Here's a picture of some of the skis mentioned. I've since replaced the stick on skins on the Rossi's but these are still glued on the base directly without being carved.