Leaderboard

Dear simmers, DC-9 Update news! A progress of cockpit, here some preview images. We hope you like it!

Dear friends, Icarus Development Team is introducing our aircraft under development: Legendary IDT DC-9! "The DC-9 is one of the most legendary airliners ever built. It was designed for frequent and short flights, for millitary and civil opperations. Accommodating from 90 to 135 passengers, was the workhorse for many airlines worldwide". Some of the features of the aircraft: - Realistic flight model, accurate flight behaviour and systems according the original technical manuals - Plug-in driven systems - HD resolution realistic textures - Full operational 3D cockpit - Hundreds of animations - Many liveries The first release will be about the DC-9-30 variant, since it's the most widely used. There will be feature upgrades that will include more variations (like the -40, used mostly by SAS), plus the military version (known as C-9). Here are some first views of the aircraft:

Kris, I can load Xassign, Airport Navigator and EZ pushback without any problem. Enjoy the CRJ ( and Windows ? ) Cheers

Needs a battery fire failure! (Ahem, Boeing--be a little more careful with who you contract to make your batteries! ).

Trust me, it was a compliment. -NR

I very much doubt that it depends on the number of flightmodels. If your fps is high enough that 1 works for you, it is good. However, most of the time you get better results with two, especially when it comes to the autopilot. The autopilot needs really fast recalculation to work properly.

757-200 arriving at LFMN.

Thanks guys Mat

When I first got into simming.....or perhaps looked at it "again" after a long absence....I do recall thinking, "I wonder if this is EXACTLY like the real thing....how cool would that be to have a serious airliner simulation for under 100 bucks that teaches me everything I'd need to know to fly the real thing". There IS something cool about that whether I bother to learn the simulation that deep or not...just knowing its there should I choose to go a bit deeper on some day when I'm bored....there's satisfaction in that to me...it's like an interactive classroom and so I can't help but aspire to that level for my stuff. We all have to bow to the whims and necessities of the market though, especially during this (longer than I thought) adolescent process x-plane seems to be going through. From the developer side though, I see things here now that I didn't have a few years ago and don't see anything but better and more accurate simulations in the future. Once FSX starts to wane, that's when the ROI will start to hit probably......its definitely a labor of love for now......darn-the-DNA. TomK

Solving the electrical systems depth in x-plane is a deceptively nagging problem that requires one to ignore most all of x-plane electrics save the battery charge. and TBH, it really is the only 'system' in a small GA. You can tie a few circuit breakers to default datarefs but that usually still leaves a lot left. For example, alternators commonly have a field winding tied to a voltage regulator...so there are TWO ways to disconnect a generator (THREE if you want to fail the voltage regulator)...via the generator switch (which disconnects a relay) or the field switch / fuse, which disengages the voltage regulator (not modeled in xplane). In addition, most avionics work on a voltage range...so when the alternator goes down, you will have 'x' amount of time before the battery drains below the minimum level to drive a device...and not all devices have the same voltage range, so you may lose one device before another and x-plane doesn't do this by default either. You need a battery model (different for Ni-Cad vs. Lead-acid), a charging model and a discharging model to get really accurate......but really, what user simulates alternator failure in a single GA or cares if an instruments dies in 10mins vs. 15mins. Is it that we enjoy knowing its there? Most aircraft don't have truly accurate systems and most users don't know it because they always operate the aircraft in a predictable manner and as long as the author makes sure things look right down that path and users don't deviate too far, they're golden. Most developers who claim they have "realistic systems" don't have truly realistic systems....but what they do have is "realistic enough for most folks to enjoy them" systems and there is something to be said for that....BUT at the same time, having truly realistic systems satisfies most all types (there are folks who claim they want accuracy but then complain when they actually get it) so there's something to be said for that too. I think in the end, a product follows a developers preferences and standards and folks who share in those can share in the enjoyment of that product for what it is. TomK

I bet you're proud of yourself for finding that one. But you entirely missed the point. I never intimated that criticism doesn't serve a purpose. The unhealthy state of things here is that you spend too much time throwing stones at other people's work and don't get enough of your own done.

DC-9 Update Today we finished the main mechanism of front landing gear system of DC-9! I hope you like it and more images coming soon!

seriously... there's a help forum for that...