Leaderboard

Thanks! I've just finished the fuel system plug-in. Everything needs testing properly, of course, but the code is finished, a few changes or additions to the model have been made, and it's working well. A fuller write-up is here: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/fb38443eed8229868c16b7817042f947-107.html The job list is getting smaller ... Guy.

If you modify something in the flight model without our knowledge and something "breaks", and we don't know about your modifications, it makes it almost impossible to help you with whatever problems you are experiencing if the problems have occurred as a result of your modifications. I've seen it before, and the person who made the modifications comes out after 3 or 4 days and says "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, I changed a few figures in the flight model." When this happens, it takes time away from our daily lives, whether it's from enjoying time with our families or working on updates and future projects. And that's time we can't afford to lose.

Been using this strip to circle around while testing how long I can go without an engine failure... been going for about 20 minutes now! And my tailwheel is acting funny again....

I've got the Carenado C152. This one may beat it! I as well am preparing paypal!

I figured that it was about time this plane got it's own development thread as the modeling is nearing completion and I do plan on finishing it at some point. It's obviously going to have a 3D cockpit and all that, the instruments are all already modeled in 3D despite not being all laid out on the panel yet. You can find some pictures below. The landing gear renders have been posted before but I'm posting them here as well so you can get a feel as to the level of detail I'm going for with this plane. Cheers

Attention aliens are smart

Good news slowly but surely ! great work !

You can do this in whole DSF tiles only, and not in small areas. It's not necessarily an easy task either, and would require you to re-generate the entire mesh from the ground up with your own data. The tool in question is provided by Laminar as MeshTool. You'll likely need to also do some smoothing work in some form of GIS software to ensure the correct areas are smooth around any airports, as MeshTool is a "best guess" tool when it comes to points and where to use them within a particular DSF file.

The livery is no longer compatible with the 787 since there was a modification to the texture mapping, so it doesn't exist :/ a new one will be painted

I never said a developer should "not be allowed" to sell liveries. I think you're taking my statements to a place they were never meant to go. Other developers can do whatever they wish. I simply do not agree with the practice. Call it an act of good will between the developer and the customer. Giving something for free when it COULD be charged for. A way of saying "Thank you for purchasing my product!" I'd much rather have someone say "Wow, they provided all those liveries for FREE?" rather than saying "Oh well, we have to pay for the extra liveries." It's just a personal preference. That's a very good question.

Goran is entitled to his opinion just as much as you are. You don't have to agree with him for his opinion to be valid, and likewise of your own. To me, the difference is that the tactic appears rather shady. This is my opinion. Liveries should be value added, I think, and help to sell the product itself rather than to drive up the cost of your product. The way these liveries are packaged force individuals into getting multiple packs if they only want two specific liveries spread across two packs. The next thing you know, the customer just paid $20 extra for two liveries...or didn't buy at all because they feel this is a rip off (the beauty of voting with your wallet). I applaud the efforts of those like McPhat and any other third party who wishes to create liveries that make otherwise bland liveries look much better, but to essentially sell 'default' liveries (and to pack your product with four liveries that few people would honestly want) is not exactly consumer friendly. If it works for them, then that's great. It doesn't work for Goran and I, and that's why the Saab was released with over 30 liveries for no additional charge. Is there even a paintkit made available right now for the 757 to get around this?

Sold!

The scenery with the sunflowers.... Where did you get it?

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

Hello Allan, try to play with the condition levers. That's very important. Have a look into the manual. And ... the Saab 340 A haven't powerful engines. Full packed or full tanked, on airports at higher levels you get really problems to take off. The B got better and more powerful machines, but we have the A - . And ... your paints are really good. Best greetings Dirk

My v9 version (Un edited) said it could fly 67 hours fully loaded!

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=519

X-Plane plausible world ?

It's been a while since I reported anything new. Cosmetically, the Comet hasn't changed, so I have no juicy screen shots to show off, just continuing work in code. Today, however, I had written enough and compiled enough to see various branches of the project working together. Nothing comprehensive, but it demonstrates the level of detail I'm working towards: http://youtu.be/ORzg_Q2dfl4 Guy.

Won't be done for a while. We're looking at near 100% systems simulation, and that takes time.

Why? Your computer next year is guaranteed to be faster.

So one thing that is important to us at IXEG is that we try and get the interaction with the cockpit as realistic as we can..and still feel natural in feel, look, sound and operation. The flap lever in the 737 is gated...so in reality, you have to pull it up out of its gate, move it to another position and let it slip back into the new gated position. It has a very distinct motion and sound but at the same time, its a relatively smooth operation so the challenge was to recreate the motion / sound / feel in sim......and it has to work with both the mouse and default flap buttons (1 and 2 keys). The video below shows using the mouse manipulator followed by the default flap keystrokes. (11.2mb) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/955680/flapslever.mp4

Because your comments were logically silly. You said 80% of people won't be able to operate (how do you even know that) it, and that IXEG will frustrate "sunday simmers". My point of post is quite clear: The number of customers developers like IXEG are targeting far outweigh that of "sunday simmers" (a group of individuals that IXEG is surely NOT targeting). PMDG has been around for a very, very long time. I don't think those people keep returning for every product they churn out with frustration in their mind. Obviously they're doing something right, and as we have seen, complexity sells.

That's life. People need to understand that making any plane takes months and months, especially heavies. I think both IXEG and LES have done extremely well keeping us updated with progress through all these long months. Have patience.

Sorry for the lack of news. I'm deep into C programming at the moment so there's not been anything complete or demonstrable to report. I'm really pleased with the statistical performance in XP10.21. Performance in XP9.70 is good, too, but it all seems to "click" in 10. Now I'm working on systems plug-ins. You may remember from earlier news articles that there are 400 individual steps necessary to get a Comet Series 4 from absolute stone-cold start to take off and climb-out. Without any plugin whatsoever, just using built-in X-Plane datarefs, I could complete 135 items on the official check list — as demonstrated in the YouTube videos I published quite a long time ago. When you read the real check list, you quickly realise that a large number of items are about communications with aircraft and ground crew administration, which are not simulated in any way in X-Plane. Also a number of visual checks where there is no failure mode in X-Plane, therefore checking them is irrelevant. So I will never achieve a ratio of 400:400. Even so, it's an interesting ratio. The motivation behind the plug-in is not to increase that number, although that will happen as a matter of course. It is to make those things that do work function better. For example, in the YouTube video, I had used a lot of generic light switch datarefs and sliders in order to be able to move levers to satisfy an item on the check list, but the levers didn't actually do anything. Now they will. I appreciate that this will be of no interest to some users, therefore there will also be a cheat button, effectively skipping to the end of the check list. Progress is steady. I've finished the flight instruments — debugging them at the moment. The DME radios are now completely separate from the NAV radios, and the distance function works over a longer range than the standard X-Plane instruments. All radios require not only the relevant electrical bus to be live, but also the inverters and radio power switches at the navigator's station; the navigator's station has its own independent ADF radios (ADF 3 and ADF 4). That only describes a limited area of the whole plug-in, but it gives an idea of what I've been up to recently. The next steps are to sort out the electrical supply, and the fuel and hydraulic systems. At this stage, I am not going to replicate historical navigation systems like LORAN or DECCA. That's a big project that's outside the scope of the Comet model. It requires the infrastructure of transmitters and their correct geographical locations as well as the simulation on board an aircraft. I don't have that information, so it would require a fair bit of research and correspondence before any work could actually begin. I have been discussing this with other members of the UK X-Plane Development Team: we're all interested in aircraft from this period, and it would be great to have this equipment available, but we haven't begun to assess the scale of the task. I am also in quite a busy period with my "real" work, and will be on assignment abroad for the whole second half of September, which will cause something of a hiatus for the Comet project — but I'm still very much on the case! Guy.

Are there any good scenery packs that DO NOT use sattelite or aerial photo imagery for ground texture? It's something I'm personally averse to, I prefer green grass to blotchy sat images with rooftops and treetops stretched onto the globe. I found some packs that do exactly that, are there any that don't? Also, I'm wondering if anyone uses the HD mesh. Is it still maintained?