Leaderboard

Finally took some leisure flying time, did a short hop between CYVR and KSEA, both of which have decent scenery on my machine. 747 in Canadian Airlines livery from the 1980's. I hate doing Seattle approach in the dark. Too many damned lights. I love it up here in Canada. Looking for an airport? Just go for something with lights, there'll probably be an airport, since we don't really have bright cities...

{Thanks! I think I looked at it once before and wound up going with the C400 (Corvalis TT, Columbia, Cessna, whatever...lol). I might have to go check that one out.} You should. Although externally similar they are both quite different to fly & both favorites of mine. Panels & autopilots brill in both. Cheers

Here are some of the pictures I took while flying around the very much incomplete PHNL today after finally getting X-Plane 10 to work... only 4 hours of messing with files and plugins before it would get past the loading screen. Finally I'm happy. I hope you guys are too. EDIT: Please check for a more recent post with the images originally found in this post.

Enjoy! http://bit.ly/XgxczS

I'm not going to address this question literally, but rather figuratively from a "design theory" point of view. Way back when I got in a discussion with a designer that absolutely insisted on using real numbers everywhere in the flight model. I couldn't really argue this approach, but at the same time, it puts the complete onus on Austin for simulating reality in code. Having done a bit of numerical simulation myself, I know that the effort involved to get realism in all possible dynamic inputs to aircraft performance is just not realistic. Now having had some classes in numerical methods, finite elements and mechanical thingys, I don't see the x-plane model as a "build it like the real thing and it will work". I see forces, moments, translations and rotations....and rates thereof. If one were to input numbers exactly and then "seat of the pants" common sense or flight testing says x-plane just isn't getting it quite right, then it's necessary to depart from norms to do it. A lot of time, we'll just "feel" our way there. Say the rudder was ineffective with actual chord an deflection values...perhaps austin's propwash model or wheel friction model isn't quite right...whatever the reason, we need more rudder control. Well you either deflect the rudder a bit more or increase it's area via chords or semi-length...or even incidence....only partial in this case as incidence on both might have been too much effect. You never really know what course a designer may take as is there is always multiple options. The thing i have found in my non-stop discussions over the flight model is that many time, people tend to discuss in "one regime".....usually cruise, whereas from a design perspective, I at least like to consider all phases. Sometimes I just have to compromise...reminding myself that this is a 70.00 sim that ain't too bad. Anyhow, that nice rudder incidence you put in to counter for P-factor at low speeds / takeoff will create unrealistic yaw at cruise speeds. The designer of the 172 is a gentlemen named "max". He sells products under the "DMax" label. Many of the default x-planes have been "built" for x-plane by "serious hobbyists"....generally pilots or 3D artists with an interest in aviation. The quality of the flight models is totally unknown as I have no idea the depth of their knowledge applied to their models....so just because a flight model comes from the "Laminar camp" is no guarantee as to its accuracy. I think as engineers, we will always have a more critical eye to these things since that's the way our brains work and why we got into the discipline in the first place....but still no guarantee. I've been guilty of working on a model and saying...."I just don't feel like spending x hours getting this right for 1 in a 1000 customers to notice". Tom K Laminar / IXEG 10 year head start....monopoly on the market and all the revenue thereof to support an army of artists to build all that stuff. x-Plane, while making great money for Austin initially...and now enough to support a small team is still only perhaps 15-20% of the flight sim market. Artists need to get paid and not enough folks are pouring into x-plane, funding such an effort. They don't come because x-plane lacks these things so it's a catch-22 of which the only solution I think is time. Being FSX is no longer developed and folks seem to like a lot of things about x-plane, they don't walk away, but neither do they flock. What I foresee is developers coming over slowly...like dripping water in a bucket. It grows slow, but eventually tips. I see no way around this currently. Could Austin set aside 100,000.00 and say, "this is for artists to make nothing but landmarks"...yea, that could happen but only Austin can ascertain if he would go there. Being that x-plane is a business and supports his other pursuits well, his incentive is going to be less than ours who are without these features. Austin maintains two other business and the mobile platform, which is a great revenue stream...better than the desktop possibly. This leaves x-plane desktop...our choice as enthusiasts as the "last in line" sometimes. We ARE however, discussing the issue and strategizing ways to deal with it, so it's not completely hopeless.

Sorry, the clouds never move. No third party alternatives either, except to change textures, but addons like REX aren't available yet. IMHO Austin needs to admit the cloud puffs didn't work and p...pppay an expert third party to come up with a better system.

Is that that the XPFW 737-300? Nice Shot!

T50: Is that add-on scenery? The water looks incredible! Colin: Nice night shot. Which plane? Is that the CRJ? I had Fly! (or maybe it was Fly! II) and was unimpressed with the rendering. FS9 was my go-to for a long time, but I never really got on board with FSX. Once I finally overcame my resistance to the XPlane UI and figured out how to fly something that wasn't on rails, I dumped MSFS altogether.

Nice shots John & Carlos....

SKBO (Bogota Colombia) - SEQU (Quito Ecuador)

Thanks! I think I looked at it once before and wound up going with the C400 (Corvalis TT, Columbia, Cessna, whatever...lol). I might have to go check that one out. You...you flew a...boat?! Seriously, though, that's a fantastic shot. Crisp, clean.

Cirrus SR22T by Jason Chandler AIR C-75 'cruster'. It comes in three models and around 40 Liveries--nice Aircraft

I think it is Jason Chandler's. Really nice model. -NR

ND Hurricane over Barakoma (Khamsin)

Nice looking plane, edwin. Which model of the SR-22 is that?

Low level hop across Bulgaria; ice forming on inlet: No more rain means no more ice!

Speaking of choppers did you guys see t hat video of a guy who got the RC aircraft out of the tree? That was some damn good flying. Case you didnt see it \

Thanks T50. Wouldn't exactly describe the Panel as nice but she looks fine from the outside, flies well, handles water 100% better than the payware Seamax (Which has the same attitude to water as a Cat ) & she will definitely stay in my hanger. Thanks Pal Got to add I,ve spent quite a bit of time in her since posting and she's a lovely little Plane to fly---- Cheers

Edwin.Do you find The Su-26 Underpowered? I'm having a hard time trying to climb with it.