Leaderboard

Let's just say that's not something I believe a developer should do.

Took my rudderless Bede out for a spin today

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/the-most-embarrassing-private-jet-flight-of-all-time/

DreamEngine is for sure very nice.

Just got the AN-2 by Red Eyes. She's a beauty .. now just got to learn to fly it within it's limits.

Hi, video of new Boeing 757 (designed by FlightFactor (Philipp and Ramzzess) and produced by VMAX). Sorry for mistakes. I hope you like

I don't like the idea of an aircraft add on developer charging extra for liveries. If a livery specialist, such as McPhat, or yourself, decided to start making liveries of a payware quality, well, that's a completely different story and I have always supported that branch of development.

IF the package is not to expensive its not a real problem. Sometimes I buy a music CD because I like SOME of the songs on it.THere is no need to like them all.

This is a nice discussion. I would say, WHY NOT, selling liveries is a normal commercial activity. PSS (FS2002) did and they got crucified for it maybe, that was a long time ago. Years later McPhatstudios started selling liveries for MSFS-airplanes ( in 2006 , I joined the McPhat-team the year before, *) and we ware applauded all over the world , McPhat sold many,many thousands of livery-packages and still do it this very moment. I am not saying an aircraft should only have a handfull ( four or five) default-liveries in the package and I would not fancy to buy the rest.( I have no need to buy liveries.............) BUT , we cannot expect a developer to provide his airplane with all liveries ( hundreds) included. We cannot expect free-painters to produce all these liveries either. (these days its sometimes even complicated to equal the quality or the default-liveries.) For many years default-liveries were not a serious issue for developers and many default liveries were hurting the eye , we`re talking 2013 now and things are completely different now. Nothing wrong with extra liveries on a commercial base , its an extra service to the customer. Under one condition !!!!!! The original plane should always have a reasonable amount of liveries by default , in the first place. The availability of many liveries free or pay always boosts the sale of the model. Several publishers were happy to see my free-paints available for their models, they told me, they saw an increase in sales . Well known publishers welcomed the commercial activities by McPhatstudios and they still do. At first they were reluctant , later they were waiting at the doorstep with their new models. Pro or contra , its not really black and white. Leen .( * I left McPhatstudios a year ago, and started sailing along other shores, after six years it was time to make a change.)

I flew my 787 once again! Benedikt is doing an incredible job painting for this project

Dreamengine is the best thing I ever heard til now

Proper sounds should definetly be in line for a bird of this sort!

I think they should put all real liveries in one package, and then do more with fictional liveries. Not spread out over 10 packs…

What happened to the main gear during taxi? It looks all right until you lined up at the runway. Then it's twisted during takeoff - looks stupid. Interesting airplane anyway. But I won't go for airliners as long as high altitude visibility and ATC is like it is. Flo

You mean that car that spontaneously combusts, whipping the general public into a panic… Or at least thats what the US media leads you to believe... Obviously hybrid/electric and straight electric cars are the way of the future, but even in this day and age where hybrids are accepted widely, they do not have a huge market presence overall. A Prius C costs around $21,000 base, but if you get a bottom end gas powered car, you can be in as low as $14,000. People are cheap, hell, how else can the "Big Three" still sell garbage vehicles? As for allowing, what the public will be lead to believe, is a glorified nuclear reactor on wheels, I doubt it will ever become accepted, let alone anything more than a really expensive prototype. Sort of along the same lines of the revolutionary aviation engine, designed by Reaction Engines for the "Skylon" aircraft.

Quite True. Right now, my rig is a laptop. I'll get a desktop one of these days and I'll make it good! Like 16gb of ram and 1tb hard drive with i7 processer.

Wait...you have to PAY for liveries???

Don't have it yet, blew a ton of money on 757 liveries. But when I get around to getting it, I am sure that the red eyes an-2 will be my favorite!

Having good sound recordings, coming from Arti, me or somebody else is one side of the story. Having a good sound engine that can make use of these high quality recordings is another story. I guess we all know that the default X-Plane sound engine is very poor, which means one has to either use one of the available 3rd party X-Plane sound engines or you code one yourself, in order to make use of high quality sound recordings. The Beaver is not using the default X-Plane sound engine and I got my hands dirty in sound plugin code so far. I fully agree that proper sounds can make a huge difference and can a lot of realism and the feeling of being there. So having a proper sound engine is one of the main points on my list, but it will evolve over time.

..................... WILLY!

yeah, the specs are fine but you're right for XP10 better i5 or i7 processors and graphics card with 1.5GB VRAM or more, it need much resources and machine although x64 is quite optimized... I was a long time with the 9.x version and it's a great version too, it it had the scenario generation from OpenStreeMap and many other improvements, so the first thing is to have good fps of course :-)

Yeah... I get about 30fps with v9.70 on about low-medium graphic settings. I have 8gb of ram and 750gb of hard drive but an i3 proccesser.

Sweet. I want v10

Wow guys, Let me point you to Post #44. That is the answer to the delays..................... Do you people even read???? And you are really out your mind if you think the Saab is bad enough to uninstall it with out the update. I find it absolutely childish to make such a statement. If you guys want to know the real meaning of soon, deal with Blizzard! Soon: Copyright 2004-2013 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. "Soon" does not imply any particular date, time, decade, century, or millennia in the past, present, and certainly not the future. "Soon" shall make no contract or warranty between Blizzard Entertainment and the end user. "Soon" will arrive some day, Blizzard does guarantee that "soon" will be here before the end of time. Maybe. Do not make plans based on "soon" as Blizzard will not be liable for any misuse, use, or even casual glancing at "soon."[1]

Hi guys. Reproducing a livery what was in real life on a 340B or a Fairchild, on the Saab 340A , OK. At first sight these planes are so alike , I do not have problems with that (nobody has I think.) BUT...... making complete "Imaginary" liveries..............? Do not expect me to do that. Sometimes I add a small logo or sticker wich was not on the real thing just to make it a bit more eye-catching. That`s as far as I like to go. Last decade I made many ( 200+) liveries only three of them were imaginary or better said phantasy. A "House-livery" for the Project Fokker Jetline ,Fokker F28 for FS9 A Robin DR40 "House-livery" for XP-France Simulation and a "House-livery " for the L.E.S. Saab 340A ( all on request by the developers ) Making liveries wich do not exist ( or existed ) in real life is quiet simple , they are always OK , no-one can tell wrong from right. My only problem is,...............I do not like making " phantasy ". Cheers Leen PS: Till today I made a total of ninetheen liveries for the L.E.S. Saab 340A and I really would welcome other painters to pick up the brushes and fill our hangar with beautifull Saab liveries. This airplane is very well paintable and even suitable for unexperienced painters.

Valentin You most certainly can not do whatever you want with it. It is not to be made available as freeware. It is not to be modified and then to expect support after modifications. It is not to be resold. It is not to be shared. There are many more. So no, when someone buys an add on, they certainly are not allowed to do whatever they want with it. They do not own the add on. They own a license to run the add-on on their own computer. That is all. If someone wants to truly own the Saab we made, to do whatever they want with it, it would cost a lot more than $54.95.