Aircraft Known to be Compatible with 64Bit

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Anyone know of any purchased planes that we know for sure that is fully functional with the latest beta (soon to be 10.20)?

 

I'll add the list here as we find out which ones are ready

 

64 bit compatible aircraft.

 

--

X-Aviation - http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog

Jetstream 32 (I'm buying this one it looks awesome)

Mentor

SeaMax

Blackshape Prime

Cessna 152

Duchess

Sundowner

CRJ (SOON)

 

Aerosoft/McPhat Studios - http://www.mcphatstudios.net/

ATR72-500

 

EADT - http://www.eadt.eu/i...t-for-x-plane-9

Freeware x737 project Benedikt Stratmann and Pierre Stone

 

Peters Aircraft http://www.petersaircraft.com/

A380 is now 64 bit.

 

Jason Chandler's aircraft at http://www.c74.net/xplane/

 

Shade Tree Micro Aviation http://www.shadetreemicro.com/projects.shtml

Husky

Beaver

Otter

Super Cub

Edited February 28, 2013 by Sgt R Lee Ermey

[Cameron]

The Jetstream 32, Mentor, SeaMax, Blackshape Prime, Cessna 152, Duchess, and Sundowner at X-Aviation. Soon the CRJ.

I believe on the org, the CRJ and 727. Not sure if there are others. Anything non-plugin related of course, so I'm sure there are.

[Daac]

I'll add the ATR72-500 from Aerosoft/McPhat Studios works in 64 bit XP10.

[Wetted Area]

Try PA Peters as well.  All part 121 airframes and they declare 64 comp.  Carenado also declares 64 comp with several part 91 aircraft.

 

[steve31000]

I made the mistake of believing the A320 Neo by Jar Design was 64 bit ready and purchased it last Sunday only to be disappointed.

 

I can of course fly in 32 bit but miss the performance of 64 bit. I have to say that it is confusing to keep up with what is compatible and what is not. Roll on the end of this beta period so all of this can be cleared up.

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Not familiar with PA peters can you clarify?  I just need the author and plane that is compatible or website so I can check.   I want to have a nice list here with a link to each manufacturer even freely distributed ones that are compatible.   Makes a quick and easy reference for us to go to shop once 10.20 is out. 

[horani]

I made the mistake of believing the A320 Neo by Jar Design was 64 bit ready and purchased it last Sunday only to be disappointed.

 

I can of course fly in 32 bit but miss the performance of 64 bit. I have to say that it is confusing to keep up with what is compatible and what is not. Roll on the end of this beta period so all of this can be cleared up.

 

A320Neo by JARDesign is 64-bit ready. Look for their 64bit beta update.

[HarryCYUL]

A320Neo by JARDesign is 64-bit ready. Look for their 64bit beta update.

just for mac users not windows

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Hey Cameron any news on whether Cessna Corvalis TT will be updated soon too?  That is another one I want to get from you.

[scubajuan_new]

Freware x737 project by EADT

Benedikt Stratmann and Pierre Stone

http://www.eadt.eu/index.php?aircraft-for-x-plane-9

[Tyler Smith]

Are you guys sure, Jetstream 32 is good to go for 64bit?

[Cameron]

Are you guys sure, Jetstream 32 is good to go for 64bit?

 

100% sure. We are the distributor of it.

[Tyler Smith]

thanks for the quick reply, you have a sale

[steve31000]

just for mac users not windows

I really wish they would release the beta for windows especially considering the windows version was released well before the Mac version. Hopefully it will happen soon.

[scubajuan_new]

Try PA Peters as well.  All part 121 airframes and they declare 64 comp.  Carenado also declares 64 comp with several part 91 aircraft.

 

PA A321 is not 64bit compatible yet. I don't know if the A380 and his previous planes for XP 9 are, I doubt it. I think his priority is with the ones released for XP 10.

 

Not familiar with PA peters can you clarify?  I just need the author and plane that is compatible or website so I can check.   I want to have a nice list here with a link to each manufacturer even freely distributed ones that are compatible.   Makes a quick and easy reference for us to go to shop once 10.20 is out. 

 

http://www.petersaircraft.com

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Oh sorry Peters Aircraft ok I'll add to list once I find out which ones are compatible. I'm just not familiar with the "part 121/91" difference.

[scubajuan_new]

Me neither, I don't know what that means.

[twgin]

General Operating and Flight Rules (14 CFR Part 91) is a section of the US Federal Aviation Regulations covering (guess what) general operating and flight rules for aircraft flown in the USA.  Private Pilot activities fall under Part 91. Part 121 is another section of the same FAR covering scheduled air carriers.  Parts 91 and 121 do not define aircraft but rather the regulations that they are operated under (a scheduled airline service under Part 121 has stricter regulations that your run of the mill VFR general aviation pilot operating under Part 91).  A private pilot flying a Baron would fall under Part 91, a scheduled service flying a Baron would fall under Part 121.

 

This can be a mind numbing topic (lets get into Part 135, Commuter and On Demand services !), but in general referring to airplanes as "part 91" or "part 121" is not quite correct.

[Wetted Area]

Oh sorry Peters Aircraft ok I'll add to list once I find out which ones are compatible. I'm just not familiar with the "part 121/91" difference.

 

 

Yes, Peters Aircraft.  That's what I was referring to. 

 

FAA Part 121 operations typically references "Commercial Airliner" type/category aircraft.  FAA Part 91, typically references "General Aviation" type/category aircraft. 

 

Sorry, for the confusion.

[Wetted Area]

This can be a mind numbing topic (lets get into Part 135, Commuter and On Demand services !), but in general referring to airplanes as "part 91" or "part 121" is not quite correct.

 

 

If one has ever worked in aviation then referring to a Part 121 operation has a very specific connotation with respect to aircraft type/category.  The same holds true for flight training, where operations are very often referred to as being either a Part 141, or Part 61 - again, having a specific connotation with respect to type and kind of flight school and/or flight training program.  Others, will also recognize the term a Part 135 operation, but that can have a broader meaning in relationship to type/category of aircraft used.  One might find a Boeing 757 sitting on the same ramp next to a PA-28R, with both belonging to a Part 135 operation.

 

In general, it might depend on ones' background as to whether or not such references are familiar, or unfamiliar.  I still remember what the Fuel Load sheets looked like at an aircraft refueling company I worked at as a kid in school.  Each account had the name of the customer along with the FAA Part number designating the type of flight operation and the type of aircraft to be fueled.  I could have said General Aviation aircraft in one instance as opposed to Part 91, but for some people that's still somewhat cryptic.  So, it might depend on what you've been exposed to in the past.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Wetted Area

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Oooh banned.  Useful answer though.  Maybe he if wasn't so pompous on that other thread he'd be around to accept my thanks heh.

[MugHug]

Jason Chandler's aircraft at AIR.C74.Net work fine under 64-bit as none of them depend on plugins.

Grumman G21-A Goose Package and the Bombardier Challenger 300 Captain Edition by Ddenn Designs using the standard SASL 64-bit plugin.

STMAs Husky, Beaver, Otter and Super Cub are now 64-bit. The Pilatus is still not fully 64-bit compatible.

Regards

Edited February 18, 2013 by MugHug

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Does Ddenn have their own site to sell their aircraft?

[MugHug]

Does Ddenn have their own site to sell their aircraft?

I have, so far been unable to confirm that.

Not sure if it is good to advertist X-Plane.org, but that is where I normally see his items for sale. SimMarket do not list his items.

Regards

[Sgt R Lee Ermey]

Thanks I'll add to list,  but I won't be adding anything to the list that the is exclusive to the cesspool of tyranny.