Leaderboard

We'd rather not give out release dates. We gave out a release week for the Saab, which we were not able to meet due to some unforeseen bugs that we wanted to fix for initial release and quite a few people were getting frustrated and calling the Saab vaporware. We'll keep posting screenshots and a video or 2, and when it's in the store, we'll make a post in these forums.

Yes they exist, nevertheless is a vage phenomena. Some days ago I saw a plane being advertised as "having High Resolution textures." I downloaded hopefully a set of textures for the plane and was terribly disappointed. The cabin-windows had a size of 22x26 pixels , text on the plane was hardly readable. How come? This was advertised as High Res Textures. The explanation is simple and disappointing the same time. The publisher has no idea what he is talking about Using 4096x4096 texture-sheets is not per definition HighRes/High Defintion it depends on how many pixel per meter aircraft is available. Yes, we should not speak about texturesizes, we only should speak about " definition " This aircraft, I am talking about, has a definition of approx 55 pixels per meter wich is a very low definition. When we have aan airplane of about 75 meter fuselage-length) and we use 4096 pixels to paint it on , it leaves us with a definition of approx 55 pixels per meter. Ohh yes, another thing , what is High Resolution. In X-Plane today its 4096x , in X-Plane yesterday it was 2048x, in FlyII-Legacy its 8192x and in industrial and art photography its....................you name it. High Resolution does not say a thing. Its all about DEFINITION Some examples of planes for X-Plane and their definition: The Saab 340 by LES is approx 300 pixels per meter wich is high definition. (largest used texturesheet = 4096x) The ATR72-500 by McPhat is approx 400 pixels per meter wich is high definition too.( largest used texturesheet = 2048x ) The B200 Beechcraft by Carenado is approx 520 pixels per meter..............UHDT Ultra High Definition Textures ( largest used texturesheet = 4096x) We can use one huge texturefile for a complete fuselage and or can use five ( or more ) smaller texturesheets for it. Its all up to the developer how he want to make things. BUT !!!! Publishers should specify their definition in pixels per meter , saying something is HighRes because its made of large texturesheets gives no idea about the expected quality and level of detail of the excraft-textures. Please do not sell us nonsense, never ever talk about texturesizes. Just tell us " "Texture-definition is .... pixels per meter" pix/mtr= or pix/feet= No need to say is that, the larger the planes are the more difficult it will get to make it in an acceptable definition. Most airliners available for X-Plane have a definition between 50-100 pix/mtr wich in fact limits their beauty. Sometimes for small text-parts there are separate text-textures available for the various plackards, detailed paintwork stays problematic. So saying, my Carenado is high resolution and my Boeing 777 is high resolution too can give us false hope. Better said , my Carenado has a definition of 500pix/mtr and my Boeing 777 has a definition of 85pix/mtr. Then we get a better idea of what we can expect.. Leen de Jager

Next An-2 Milka

It'll be worth the wait. I promise.

A little something I've been working on this week.

In a rant, you usually just complain about something, mostly in an emotional manner. (The German translation of "rant", by the way, is "Hasstirade" or "Schimpftirade", meaning "hatred tirade" or "grumbling / bitching about sth. tirade") In this thread, a problem is pointed out not just for the sake of "ranting", but for seriously discussing possible solutions to the problem (i.e. the pixel per meters/feet approach).

Best aerobatics planes for XP10 simulator I hope you like

My first attempts also weren't exactly a walk away . The easy part is to pilot left/right, the (much) more difficult part is to control - and reduce - the descent rate to a decent value (but again not too much), especially close to landing. Yesterday evening I did some more flying, this time not only an approach, but more or less the simulation of the DHL A300 incident (still with the Baron). I started and during climb at 1500 ft, I released all controls - it will be fairly visible. After the 3rd attempt, I stopped due to lack of time. Video should be available in about 45 minutes.

What started as an initial flight to lunch with some friends turned to absolute hell when an insane supercell buildup appeared truly out of nowhere. We were wrapping up lunch and I was glued to my iPad checking every possible weather maps. Despite having done my weather research according to training, the unfortunate insane Florida weather created a buildup of storms that lasted 12+ hours and battered the Tampa Bay area. The airport alone received 5 inches of rain in 12 hours. Since I had passengers, I refused to take to the skies and fly home as my passengers' safety is my main priority. Always remember that aviation can be a life ending passion if you don't treat it accordingly. Always fly safe and never try to rush. Still flyable weather. This was mid-lunch when I first checked the weather. Post lunch storm buildup. And this was the flight home this morning

I have a feeling he really is talking about the outboard section of flap, rather than the aileron; they don't seem to align quite right - which, perhaps, they should, if you compare to this image:

I was in the process of turning to final. The plane was being banked to the left at about 15* thus the need for ailerons. I've included some useful links below, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/6-reasons-why-you-should-think-before-you-speak.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics Enjoy the evening read my young uneducated friend.

Judging by the strong lack of knowledge, I'm going to make the assumption that he was talking about the aileron and not the flap. Either way, the flaps are modeled perfectly, and the aileron was positioned that way for a valid reason. Silly Shishkabab typing before he thinks...

No, you know why I couldn't say that? Because you right away called out Derek's modeling without thinking. You said something needs to be changed prior to asking whether or not it should be changed. Big difference. Want to know why I have 0 patience with you? It's because I've had to go back and forth multiple times with you on this forum because of your childish banter. Also, as Ben pointed out, your feedback is still quite misunderstood. Please enlighten me on how typing "THE FLAP" in all caps will resolve anything?