Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/17/2018 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    So we've been hard at work at implementing a custom icing simulation & rendition. Everything dynamic and done via shaders, of course. Depiction of severe icing encounter. Inboard boot just inflated, so inboard leading edge is flaky as the ice flew off in chunks. Notice the ice isn't just a surface effect, it appreciably increases the thickness of the wing, as there are several inches of packed ice in this image: The jagged leading edge in the following screenshot is due to ice crystal growth. This is what makes the wing stop behaving like a wing and instead gives it the refined aerodynamic qualities of a brick: Any exposed sharp edges and point-like structures are prime ice accumulation space: Including wing leading edges, strakes, exposed antenna housings and flap fairings: While stationary on the ground, ice also tends to accumulate on the fuselage:
  2. 2 points
    For now, all focus is on the TBM 900 I'm working on. I spoke to Jim yesterday, actually, about the Citation. If all goes well, it'll be better than what we already have. Unfortunately, it won't be out this year.
  3. 2 points
    I really do like this plane. Although it is a bit rough round the edges at the moment compared to the likes of other addon aircraft, I can't help but want to fly it. I think you will agree that it looks cool and pulls off that nostalgic dial immersive feeling what all us steam gauge nutters strive for in a flight sim environment.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    Nope, all of this is okay and inconsequential. You don't want or need these particular sounds loading in X-Plane 11. Those are XP 10 sounds prior to FMOD for various packages. All is okay!
  6. 1 point
    We can't make any firm date commitments yet, but I can say there's definitely light at the end of this tunnel! We will update all the usual places (including our Discord channel) once we have more info on release date, pricing and overall availability.
  7. 1 point
    Thanks for the quick response! I'll give it a try with the normal maps. However, since I may need a little bit longer to get it right, I decided to release a first version of the livery and update the probs later:
  8. 1 point
    OK too funny. Totally cool that the gauge is modeled to be the correct perspective. I of course never move my eyesight over to the center of the cockpit, but upon checking its perfect. Good job, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Bryan
  9. 1 point
    Thanks Dave. Much appreciated.
  10. 1 point
    I merged the files into one folder and do not see any difference till now. From x-aviation I got the answer that they do not support case sensitive systems. Unix/Linux the file systems are always case sensitive.... Big Apples are something others than little apples. Ok, this is now a principal philosophy and more OT.
  11. 1 point
    This (ice simulation) is something I've wanted for so long!
  12. 1 point
    If you are a projectFLY user and have been experiencing bugs after enabling their X-Plane bridge plugin please install this new plugin. https://github.com/benrussell/Open.FlyBridge/releases For the back story on how and why this new plugin was created see this blog post: http://blog.x-plugins.com/2018/09/projectfly-bridge-plugin-rewrite.html
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    I'm happy to assist others in writing one, but I don't plan on doing it myself. While I would consider shared-cockpit a core feature requirement for an airliner, the TBM is almost never flown multi-crew, so that puts the feature rather low on the priority list from a realism perspective. And a second reason is that the airplane runs tons of randomizing code that gives it the "organic" feel of every flight being different, every system responding a little different to inputs, etc. Replicating that between two nodes would be a major undertaking and I'm not really sure is even practically possible (at least to my requirement of stability & usability) by using smartcopilot's simple dataref syncing approach. I suspect it would take a much more integrated approach that would talk to the internals of the systems simulation directly.
  15. 1 point
    So as you fine folks may already know, in our usual style of going completely overboard on the level of detail, a few weeks back I've implemented a custom VHF radio signal propagation model. This means, NAV radios (VOR, LOC, GS and DME) are all simulating things such as terrain masking, terrain diffraction, tropospheric scattering, etc. The underlying computational model is based on the NTIA Irregular Terrain Model (ITM), an industry-standard model used for things like radio tower planning. The simulation includes a built-in analytics display that allows you to check the terrain profile being used by the radio model (please note, the image below isn't hand-painted, it updates in real time as you fly): What's recently new is that I re-implemented the ADF and standalone DME radios as well. So the entire radio complement in the TBM is as follows: Two VOR/LOC/DME radio. One ADF radio One standalone DME radio That involved re-implementing all course deviation needles and the DME tuning pages on the PFD. All features of the real G1000 are simulated, even some of the more odd ones: ADF, ANT, ADF/BFO and ANT/BFO reception modes. This is reflected in the audio ID portion, including the continuous tone you hear in BFO mode when no ADF signal is being received. All DME tuning modes simulated, so NAV1 slaved, NAV2 slaved and HOLD. Allows for flying the more bizarre approaches, such as NDB/DME. Intercom audio routing from the radios is properly implemented, so NAV1 & NAV2 buttons route the audio ID for the NAV1/2 VOR/LOC portion, the DME button routes the standalone DME radio audio (including 1250 Hz square-wave tone, instead of 1kHz sine wave) and the ADF radio routes the ADF radio audio (including proper tone & background noise behavior depending on reception mode).
  16. 1 point
    After flying it for around 1 year now, it has instantly become my absolute favourite. I actually prefer this to any 737 NG simulation. I don´t really need most of the things from the "Things that are NOT going to be.."-List. Opening doors etc. is nice eye-candy, but not really necessary for me. What I miss flying on Vatsim though is a HOLD function. It really kills the whole realism for me, flying all the procedures and then the controller asks you to enter a HOLD and you can´t do it. Yes, you can fly sort of a manual HOLD; I could also fly the whole leg manually or only with HDG mode, but I don´t - as this is not very realistic. I can imagine that most fans of the 733 here would love a HOLD implementation very much, especially if they use this fantastic 733 on any online network. Thank you so much, again, for this great project and its outcome: The most flyable plane on XP11. (for me) The pure joy of flying a STAR manually after takeoff, the way this plane simply flies, trims, it is incomparable on XP for me. Yours Martin
  17. 1 point
    Guys I dontget why people are getting angry....... we are waiting and i just asked so chill plz, this isnt spam
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    The world goes crazy. May be later somebody help me in my wish to have an exelent aircraft with biautiful WINGFLEX. You guys can futher play even with 2d panel.
  21. 1 point
    Я рад за тебя. Молодец.
  22. 1 point
    It seems to me , that you all guys have interest in defending you friends developers. We can eat without spoons and knifes too, but I dont think you do this, like we can fly without wingflex. But nowdays it is important to have wingflex. If you dont want it go to Xplane 5 and fly on windows 95. I wonder , why you write something here and make developers never even think about wingflex. Shame on you !
  23. 1 point
    I use X-Camera chronically. And that's down to TrackIR. Sometimes I want to see something in the plane (FMC / right side of plane) and the angle of TrackIR will go to its limit or make it a bit hard to operate (in the case of the FMC). I just map static views and flip between them from my joystick d-pad and back to my TrackIR view. I think what Vantskruv is thinking about is for example the A/T indicators that dynamically pop up on the screen. Seeing that X-Camera is basically an extension of the built-in viewer I personally doubt it will mess around with such indications as I've seen that animation pop up even when looking externally at the 737 during takeoff from Jan's videos. The only time X-Camera gives me a "problem" is when a plane has static custom views (Saab 340 as an example - it will go to a view I select and then go back to default view - in this case trackir) or a walk around procedure with interactive click spots. Then I typically disable it for that walk around and then enable it once I am in the cockpit again or I just map the custom views of the plane to X-Camera views.
  24. 1 point
    More work on the huey I showed last post and here I am sitting with a single 670... well at least I have a render farm... EDIT: and
  25. 1 point
×