Leaderboard

We are having fun tying in the cool parts of the simulation and wanted to share a bit. There is a lot going on behind the scenes systems wise in this video so here is a quick commentary. We are beginning to tie in a lot of interdependent systems code in this video. You will see electrical, lighting and sound systems working together in subtle ways to maximize cockpit immersion. In this video, I basically play with the generator and GPU switches...but as I do, you'll see some things happening. You can hear cockpit fans running, there are more than one and as the power is flipped on an off, you'll note the cockpit fan noise changes a bit as a fan loses power. Also, when switching between power sources (GPU and generators in this case) the system automatically has to disconnect one bus fully before connecting the other and this momentary disconnect of electricity causes bus loss of power which causes everything that is not on the battery bus to "flicker". The loud sound you hear as generators are connected/disconnected are the main bus breakers, which because they carry heavy electrical loads, are big and heavy and make a loud noise in the cockpit. You'll also note the EHSI and EADI go off and on with power...but they have a "self-test" duration period every time they power on so they don't come on as quickly as the go off. We are still wiring up stuff in the cockpit though but thought you might have fun watching it as it progresses. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/955680/breakers.mp4

Hey guys. a report after a bit of testing yesterday. I have to convert my Garmin GTX330 transponder to Lua...not the GPS. This looks to be bit more work than other code I converted. I'll have to take some time to reverse engineer my code (its been a while) and then represent it in Lua. I originally thought I could do this in a week, but think it will be longer. The good news is that I am working on it and if history is any indication, once the "idea" is solidified, the code goes very quickly. So in the larger "context", a few more weeks is acceptable to me, but at least it is not indefinite. I am actively working on it so its not sitting on the shelf. From the testing I did yesterday, I am really happy with the performance though my beta tester is having some issues we have to work through. Besides the GTX330 transponder, the Moo is operating great! As far as x-plane GPS goes, we at Laminar know its a weak point and we know it needs addressing so it will not be a one trick pony forever. TomK

Departure Airport: Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport (YSSY) Arrival Airport: Hong Kong International Airport (VHHH) Aircraft: B747-400 (B744) Flight Time: 8.51 Route: RIC WLG ONIVI AKLET VILOL TAVEV SARIK TASHA RUVAP EGORE DUMAV IGOPO GUTEV AMN BONDA MOLLY TANAL ZAM MASUN MARAN PALOS TOKON LEGED REKEL IBOBI AKOTA MAVRA VHHH Airlines: Freeworld Airways

Here is an update for P180 Avanti II v1.1 for X-Plane 10 only. This update should improve frame rates quite a bit! It is available for downloding from here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zulak010ctim7tf/P180_1_1_update3.zip Inside there is an Readme file to help you with the installation. Enjoy!

More

I edited Riveres texture mapping and model... changed the engine bigger, remapped and retextured the wing...modified fuselage tail and textures....and more

No strange airfoils XP does a great job on it's own in most areas, but if you want extreme accuracy, it needs a bit of help. We "bend" the model if needed. Exactly what we do in various areas I cannot tell you, but the main point is, that if you are willing and capable of going that extra mile - you can get there n XP. So no, we are not going against the philosophy, we take it one step further and tailor it to fit the 737. M

The primary thing to keep in mind here is the concept of "math modeling" of a behavior. When any engineer decides to model something mathematically, they will have to make choices about how to go about doing so. The "x-plane approach" is a sound approach, but doesn't guarantee that Austin has yet implemented any given feature or relationship accurately. For example, ground effect due to air compression. This is something that Austin might choose to 'approximate' by altering aero forces close to the ground. He might come up with some heuristic function relating wingspan to lift and apply that to his equations. We may find that his choice of model was lacking for some reason...perhaps he was in a hurry or didn't feel like digging up research or thought "this is good enough and nobody will know"....and in such a case, we might seek to alter that behavior to get even more accurate. Just because Austin wrote the code does not mean that adopted the correct math model for a behavior. So we feel we do not go against the x-plane philosophy, but rather seek to improve the areas that Austin has yet to either get to or has no interest in getting to. So for any given behavior, usually the first thing we do is assess how well x-plane simulates something....and if it comes up short, then we try and find ways to improve it. Being that we are multiple guys working on one project (as opposed to Austin working on 3 or 4)...then it's more reasonable for us to spend lots of time fixing one area while Austin is dealing with dozens of other issues with mobile or his VP400 AP system, etc. The challenge for aircraft developers is to assess x-plane and making note of what it does well and what it does not do well. Austin is not interested is absolute accuracy across the board anymore and is content to let 3rd party folks customize it. I give props to the relevant Laminar team members for at least providing a way for folks to simulate that which Austin has elected not to via the SDK. TomK Laminar / IXEG

That's correct. That's essentially verbatim what Tom stated, so you have that assumption correct. For an $80 sim it is quite impressive in its ability to provide realism and enjoyment within the realm of reasonable expectation for the price. It can be debated all day long, but of all the sims out there in this price range, many of us feel X-Plane provides the most realistic approach you can get. Morten can answer this further, but I view this answer as a 'yes' and a 'no' one. We already know that X-Plane's approach by itself is not 100% there, but does quite a good job for any enthusiast or developer. In the instance of Morten and the IXEG guys, they want more out of X-Plane (going off of what he has already said) and they know how to get it, even if it takes reverse engineering. They are bending the sim to be even more realistic than it's intended to be, and above all, we can't expect these guys to share every secret they have in their inventory.

Yep! Classic case.