Leaderboard

lights, Ola, watch those with HDR (streets, ramp lights etc.)

updated to 2.0.1 -Fixed osm height extraction bug. -Added a console output mode for debug purpose (advanced tab). -Removed some very low sloped roofs that could lead to potential xplane crash and were bad for performance. -Fixed street lights bug.

By a definition, demo shows (or demonstrates) the capabilities of a full version, but in a somehow limited scope. So, we have a limit on time to fly, we have a limit on a scenery, we have a limit on acceptable aircraft (ooops, sorry for that), but having a limit on basic and widely advertised features, is a bit too much, don't you think? On the bright side, FSX demo sucked as much, if not more and yet the dev team turned it into a succesfull product, which was enjoyed by many people. We'll see.

Either have anti-aliasing on or HDR with FXAA enabled, but not both. Shadowing is currently very GPU intensive. I'd set it to static for now. FWIW, I have a 3.33GHz W3680 and an HD 5870 and am seeing terrible frame rates.

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.

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

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.

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...