Payware 727?

[FirstOfficerTom]

Ive got the 727 from xpfw which is nicely modelled but the cockpit is of XP9 default a/c standard.

Does anyone know of a 727 currently in development?

Thanks,

Tom

[WombatBoy]

There is one on the .org being developed by "The Flying Badger" but I haven't seen any development on it in a REALLY long time.

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=38500&st=0

[simbabeat]

What do you mean xp standard cockpit?  I believe someone made a custom panel.  I can dig it up if you don't find it.

[MaidenFan]

We NEED a really nice 727! It's a huge classic in my opinion...

[Ben Russell]

Ive got the 727 from xpfw which is nicely modelled but the cockpit is of XP9 default a/c standard. Does anyone know of a 727 currently in development? Thanks

now that is some sneaky spamming right there.....

[Jack Skieczius]

Ive got the 727 from xpfw which is nicely modelled but the cockpit is of XP9 default a/c standard. Does anyone know of a 727 currently in development? Thanks

now that is some sneaky spamming right there.....

Wow yeah, i'll say. That is more sneaky then usual....

Took me a second to even see what was happening.

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

Ive got the 727 from xpfw which is nicely modelled but the cockpit is of XP9 default a/c standard. Does anyone know of a 727 currently in development? Thanks

now that is some sneaky spamming right there.....

Wow yeah, i'll say. That is more sneaky then usual....

Took me a second to even see what was happening.

Didn't even realize it until those 2 posts.  Extremely subtle.

True, I didn't even realize it until those 2 posts.  Extremely subtle.

[Dozer]

I don't get it. Is this spam for FlyingBadger's 727? Is it still alive?

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

It seems like its spam for the XPFW one.

[Dozer]

Is that bad? (Is there some sort of feud between X-Pilot and XPFW??)

[Ben Russell]

The post that I replied to, as QUOTED (Pay attention UH..) .. is a bot replying to this thread.

The post I replied too has been deleted, but was immediately before my last post in this thread.

The post was made by a bot, and to make a seemingly "on topic" post, it took a copy the first post from the thread and re-posted it, with very minor changes.

This makes it look like an on-topic, relevant, coherent, yet strangely familiar post... while embedding annoying spam tags in the users signatures. (Google bomb...)

Had this been a longer thread I probably wouldn't have caught it, because we're still on the first page I could compare it to the first post, which made me look closer and spot the spam-signature.

...I now return you to your scheduled 727 thread.

[Dozer]

Ahh. I wondered why you were quoting Umer instead of FirstOfficerTom. I didn't see any links in your quote, and Umer's post had been deleted before I read the thread. Mystery resolved (and we all love XPFW)!

[Jack Skieczius]

So yeah, back to 727 talk.

I remember flying the Captain Sim 727 for a bit when i used FSX. was a fun bird, when you overlooked the several major flaws. I guess all captain sim planes have major flaws but they look so very very good that most of the time you can over look them.

One of the things i liked most about flying that particular 727 was actually its horrible flight model. One of the neat things you could do with it is approach an airport a 30+ thousand feet, and at about 5 miles out from the landing runway, pull the power back, flaps down and spoilers out. Dive towards the runway. Oddly enough you would not over-speed like you would think would happen. Instead the plane actual slows down once you start pull back up to position for a landing.

I did this a few times on Vatsim, and the controllers just laughed.

So that was my time with a 72. I haven't picked up the XPFW 72 yet, but if it is only a 2d pit, i may not want to.

I am sure someone will make one for Xplane eventually.

[Dozer]

My favourite 727 was Dreamfleet's FS9 model from about 2002, about the same time as Captain Sim's (imo, much inferior) model. It had fairly sophisticated systems modelling and even a little failure modelling, in that there was a (configurable) chance of engine fire. Textures were beautiful for the 1024x768 era. It had a very well configured array of 2d panels. There was a large hidden clickspot in the top right corner of all the auxillary panels to close them, and there were logically-placed hidden clickspots to open the adjoining panel. For example you'd only see a small part of the overhead panel in the default view, but if you click on it, the entire full-screen overhead panel would load. Made navigating the panels very intuitive. You could also use keystrokes or an always-on-top view control panel to select different views.

The sounds were excellent; there was a choice of about ten different voices for the co-pilot (who had a few dozen words to say at various points - "Flaps 5", "Engine 3 to 'Ground'" etc). People complained about the strange ticking noise on the flight deck, which was the agitator for the electromagnetic flight instruments and authentic, and the muted engine noise on startup - again appropriate for a 727! Flight model was probably as good as any you'd get in FS9. The aircraft shipped with a manual full of very usable performance charts, for the -100 and -200. Later in its life, the -200Adv version and wingletted Super 27 variants were included, which combined with Passenger and Freighter versions as appropriate gave a huge number of types to accidentally misinstall a livery into. There was a superb configuration utility to set passenger and/or freight loads, and fuel loadout, and to select which of the ten copilot voices you wanted, and whether you want EFIS or 'steam' instruments, and how much you'd like the engines to catch fire, and how loud you'd like the fire bell to ring when that happens.

I loved it back in the day. But when I go back to any of the FS9 2d-panel aircraft, the jerky motion of the flight instruments is a killer. As someone who mostly flies IFR, I need to have a smoothly-animated artificial horizon, altimeter etc - and FS9 cannot deliver that like XP can. But other than the limitations of the FS9 platform, there's a lot for current aircraft developers to learn from that product...

edit: just found a video that supremely illustrates the problem with FS9. Look at

- it only animates in pixel increments, which is bad when the panel's designed to 1024x768! This isn't an artefact of YouTube, this is what the sim was like for me last time I tried to use it, which is why I don't have anything except XP9 installed now.

edit: it also had a working weather radar from RealityXP. I'd forgotten so much about the awesomeness of the DF727!

[Jack Skieczius]

Wow the sounds in that video, though highly distorted actually sound good. What i mean, is the sounds add to the feel of the plane. as he swtiches views you can hear the change and instantly know you are in a different place.

[Dozer]

FS9 doesn't have default sounds for things like moving a switch on a panel; they have to be baked into the individual components of the instrument panel by the gauge/systems programmer. So serious designers need to source a bunch of sound files themselves - I think the team for this aircraft included a sound recordings specialist. (Of course you can alias your sounds to one of the default aircraft, but that's the equivalent of using one of X-Plane's stock 2d instruments without retexturing it - it appears 'cheap' in a $30 product!)

edit: the constant clattering noise in-flight is the elevator trim actuator. I'm pretty sure it was possible to mute it from the config program - certainly worth doing!