X-Plane 10 default 747 by Javier Rollon interior shots WOW

[Jim Kallinen]

All images are 1080p, to view full screen, right click on image and hit view.

Overhead panel.

Control panel.

[Jim Kallinen]

Looking back back to the 1st class seating.

Demo time ran out when using the head. :hahaha:

[hobofat]

Huge congratulations to Javier for some of the fantastic new planes inside of XP10. What a huge step up from v.9. Glad Laminar hired you and put the resources into this!

[Kaphias]

I continue to find it amusing that one can put all this effort into the interior and 3D cockpits but fail to get a basic exterior feature correct.

[Redfisher]

I continue to find it amusing that one can put all this effort into the interior and 3D cockpits but fail to get a basic exterior feature correct.

Can you be more specific? Are you sure "amusing" is the right word? Maybe you can start developing payware aircraft.

[Simmo W]

Too right, this is a beautiful plane in and out! Even prettier when moving and banking

[Simmo W]

... But my first hurried landing was a bellyflop, talk about wing flex!

[Kaphias]

Can you be more specific? Are you sure "amusing" is the right word? Maybe you can start developing payware aircraft.

There was discussion regarding the shape of the "hump" here quite some time ago, apparently it hasn't been fixed since then. Yes, amusing is the correct word.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Kaphias

[Simmo W]

... But my first hurried landing was a bellyflop, talk about wing flex!

[hobofat]

There was discussion regarding the shape of the "hump" here quite some time ago, apparently it hasn't been fixed since then. Yes, amusing is the correct word.

Which is interesting because a certain MSFS developer mentioned having to change the shape of the hump to be less realistic because when they modeled it according to specifications everybody complained that the shape was wrong.

Looking forward to the day a flight sim product is released without an upswell of negativity.

[Kaphias]

Which is interesting because a certain MSFS developer mentioned having to change the shape of the hump to be less realistic because when they modeled it according to specifications everybody complained that the shape was wrong.

Looking forward to the day a flight sim product is released without an upswell of negativity.

Show me the specs that the new XP 747 was built off of, then I'll ask why nobody complains about the look of a real 747 being incorrect. Hm wait, that doesn't make much sense...

Looking forward to the day when people learn to get the basics right before moving on.

[Simmo W]

Have to admit I never noticed any unusual shapes when drooling over some replays. It is a default aircraft remember. If enough people complain, maybe it'll be adjusted. I'm not complaining, in fact I think it looks better- they should change the RL version!

Could you do the same detailed comparo for the fsx default?

[Kaphias]

Have to admit I never noticed any unusual shapes when drooling over some replays. It is a default aircraft remember. If enough people complain, maybe it'll be adjusted. I'm not complaining, in fact I think it looks better- they should change the RL version!

Could you do the same detailed comparo for the fsx default?

I certainly can't blame people for not noticing- I understand that not everyone spends some (or more...) of their free time looking through Airliners.net images like I do. I realize that it's a default aircraft, but I don't see that as an excuse, not when you look at how the rest of the airplane has been done. Heck, XPFW had the hump more correct on their 747 from V6- that's 6 years ago. Even the old default 747 had it right. What happened?

I couldn't get FSX to fire up so I pulled a shot off the internet, still makes the point though:

[paulyg]

Biggest thing I notice is the window and door placement as well as a slightly different slope towards the back of the hump. The windows appear a bit oversize too. Personally my only issue with the plane is that I can't seem to fly it above 10 FPS. I do agree with those who think the criticism is undeserved, though. It is an astounding effort, and to compare it to the FSX default 747 is lunacy.

Tongue FIRMLY planted in cheek, I would also like to bring up the troubling fact that the spacing of the rivets is COMPLETELY off, it should conform to PUBLISHED stringer locations and represents a CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE flaw in the shoddy external model. I also noticed that the blade antennas are disgustingly wrong, off by a complete 10 degrees. Honestly, it's THIS kind of thing that makes or breaks a great sim. If Laminar can't get their act together, all of their work on flight model, ATC, atmospheric effects, autogen weather, and other things secondary to the external models of the default planes will be completely wasted, as NOBODY will accept anything short of perfection when it comes to default aircraft, especially one which is flown on a regular basis in real life by SO MANY simmers.

Oh wait...

[Simmo W]

Now I'm confused- I can't tell which is the real one now!

Sorry, but the fsx one- the flight deck windows look wrong, and those fins up top are in wrong position.

[Kaphias]

Biggest thing I notice is the window and door placement as well as a slightly different slope towards the back of the hump. The windows appear a bit oversize too. Personally my only issue with the plane is that I can't seem to fly it above 10 FPS. I do agree with those who think the criticism is undeserved, though. It is an astounding effort, and to compare it to the FSX default 747 is lunacy.

I think you've missed my point. I'm simply amused by the fact that, despite all the wonderful things going on elsewhere in the plane, we can't get something right that we've been doing just fine on for six years. What bugs me is that as we move forward with all the stunning 3D models, some begin to forget the basics of flight simulation (that is what XP is, right?), such as flight model, usability, and framerate. I guess I understand why people don't agree with me (ooh look at all the 3D buttons!) but that's the reason I still use XPFW aircraft from V8- they've got the basics down pat.

[Cameron]

I think you've missed my point. I'm simply amused by the fact that, despite all the wonderful things going on elsewhere in the plane, we can't get something right that we've been doing just fine on for six years. What bugs me is that as we move forward with all the stunning 3D models, some begin to forget the basics of flight simulation (that is what XP is, right?), such as flight model, usability, and framerate. I guess I understand why people don't agree with me (ooh look at all the 3D buttons!) but that's the reason I still use XPFW aircraft from V8- they've got the basics down pat.

Considering that the "basics" really only have to do with a flight model, then Javier's construction of what may be improper looking to you has no effect on what's fundamentally "basic." 3D objects are not what the flight model is based off of, and considering how much BETTER the default, FREE X-Plane 10 747 is graphically over all other versions available, I'm rather astonished at your nitty gritty upset. If it were a payware plane, I could sympathize with you to a much larger degree.

If you're really just into the flight model side of it, just open up the acf file in Plane Maker and see if the flight model side of it appeals to you. If not, you could always attach the obj's to the XPFW model. That said, maybe our version of "basics" is different to a large degree. To me, "basics" should mean that as a flight sim, the flight model should be the most basic and important aspect. A 3D hump off by a couple of degrees has no bearing on my flight experience...for "free" as a bonus added piece to the package.

[Kaphias]

and considering how much BETTER the default, FREE X-Plane 10 747 is graphically over all other versions available,

It's not better, IMO. It doesn't have a 2D cockpit, and all the extra 3D stuff slows down the sim. Most people will disagree with me.

If you're really just into the flight model side of it, just open up the acf file in Plane Maker and see if the flight model side of it appeals to you. If not, you could always attach the obj's to the XPFW model. That said, maybe our version of "basics" is different to a large degree. To me, "basics" should mean that as a flight sim, the flight model should be the most basic and important aspect. A 3D hump off by a couple of degrees has no bearing on my flight experience...for "free" as a bonus added piece to the package.

The Plane Maker fuselage of the new 747 is, for our intents and purposes, the same as the one from V9. I agree that we probably differ on our "basics". For me, it goes something like this:

Basics:

-Flightmodel

-2D cockpit

-Systems simulation

Not basics:

-3D .obj

This is why I'm such a fan of the x737: They got the basics downbefore they moved on to the 3D fanciness. (And the 3D work they have done so far doesn't slow my computer down, so I can ignore it)

Now with that said, I can see why some would think that it's odd that I'm complaining about a 3D hump when I don't care about 3D. Two things:

-This is the 747, one of the most recognizable aircraft of all time, because of the hump

-Basics, pt. II: Why move on to the seats and toilets when the basic exterior shape isn't correct? Not only that, but the PM model is correct, as is the PM model from V9... and V8... and the XPFW model from V6...

I just don't understand, I guess.

[Cameron]

Now with that said, I can see why some would think that it's odd that I'm complaining about a 3D hump when I don't care about 3D. Two things:

-This is the 747, one of the most recognizable aircraft of all time, because of the hump

-Basics, pt. II: Why move on to the seats and toilets when the basic exterior shape isn't correct? Not only that, but the PM model is correct, as is the PM model from V9... and V8... and the XPFW model from V6...

I just don't understand, I guess.

Me neither. Will you make a better one for us, please?

[Kaphias]

Me neither. Will you make a better one for us, please?

No thanks, the XPFW 747 will do fine. Good flightmodel, nice 2D panel, easy on the framerates. Just missing system simulation, but I can hardly remember how to fly the x737 anyway with all the different a/c I fly. Too lazy to re-read the manual each time...

Maybe one day I'll take a stab at straightening out "humpy" in blender.

[Kieran]

If you have a substitute then why are you winging?

[Kaphias]

If you have a substitute then why are you winging?

Maybe I'm winging my whining.

Mostly because it concerns me that this is the direction X-Plane is taking: "Who cares about the basic shape of the plane, it's got lots of 3D buttons, passenger seats, and a lav!" Hopefully it's just growing pains and authors will learn to balance stunning 3D work with a accurate flightmodel and systems simulation.

[paulyg]

I was very impressed with the SR-71, X-15, Baron 58, Lancair (which HAS a 2d panel), B-2 (which HAS a 2d panel), Stinson, KC-10 (which again, HAS a 2d panel), B-52 (which has... wait for it... a 2-dimensional panel!!!!!!!!!) and KingAir. I don't remember any of those having operable toilets. For me these aircraft represent the direction X-plane is taking. Full systems simulation for a 747 is going to be had for a lot more than an all-inclusive (sim and other default planes included) $80, so I really don't know what to tell you as far as your expectations for high fidelity systems programming in default aircraft go. If you're unhappy with it, don't buy it.

[karingka]

Honestly man, why are you spoiling the fun for all those who enjoy it, which, clearly, is the majority? You do know, this is the default plane, and Javier has worked hard to make it like it already is. The hump is such a minor "fault" that if you refuse to fly it because of it, there is something wrong with you. I can understand if you don't like the 3d pit, as that is something subjective, but the hump?? Please. How many years have they worked to make this XP10 possible, which we all have craved for so dearly? Dude, seriously, you should sort out your priorities. If you don't like it, you can stick with V9 while we all enjoy the AWESOME NEW VERSION 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't intend to be rude, or mean, but I respect the hard work they all put in.

[Kaphias]

I was very impressed with the SR-71, X-15, Baron 58, Lancair (which HAS a 2d panel), B-2 (which HAS a 2d panel), Stinson, KC-10 (which again, HAS a 2d panel), B-52 (which has... wait for it... a 2-dimensional panel!!!!!!!!!) and KingAir. I don't remember any of those having operable toilets. For me these aircraft represent the direction X-plane is taking.

And that's a sad direction to be taking, one where we get nice 3D exteriors but still have a Plane Maker 2D panel from many years ago.

Full systems simulation for a 747 is going to be had for a lot more than an all-inclusive (sim and other default planes included) $80, so I really don't know what to tell you as far as your expectations for high fidelity systems programming in default aircraft go. If you're unhappy with it, don't buy it.

I understand the difficulty in programming systems simulation. But I still believe that having a 747 that flies and operates as close to the real thing as possible is more important in a flight simulator that including passenger seats and toilets.

Honestly man, why are you spoiling the fun for all those who enjoy it,

I fail to see how I'm spoiling your fun. Coming into your house and taking away your computer would be spoiling your fun. Complaining about a virtual airplane on an online message board should not be spoiling your fun.

which, clearly, is the majority?

Are you saying that I can't complain unless it's the majority opinion?

You do know, this is the default plane, and Javier has worked hard to make it like it already is. The hump is such a minor "fault" that if you refuse to fly it because of it, there is something wrong with you. I can understand if you don't like the 3d pit, as that is something subjective, but the hump?? Please.

Yes, this is the default plane. It's the face of X-Plane as the simulator makes a huge leap forward. Being the default plane is no small task, see? Yes, I suppose the hump is a minor "fault". But you have to remember that this is the 747, arguably one of the most recognizable aircraft ever, along with the Concorde. Why is it so recognizable? Because of the hump. Besides that, it still blows my mind that we start messing up things now that we've had right for years.

How many years have they worked to make this XP10 possible, which we all have craved for so dearly? Dude, seriously, you should sort out your priorities. If you don't like it, you can stick with V9 while we all enjoy the AWESOME NEW VERSION 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do have my priorities sorted out, actually I believe I posted them on the previous page. I don't believe I ever complained about XP10, though I certainly could in its current state.

Didn't intend to be rude, or mean, but I respect the hard work they all put in.

As do I. Javier is obviously one of the best out there right now and I respect his work. What I don't get is why a basic 3D modeling error wasn't corrected months ago when it was first noted.