Leaderboard

Stringden, why can't you accept that things don't work the way you want it? You want wingflex, but it won't be implemented too soon. You asked about it, you nagged about it, you got a lot of attention, but still: no wingflex. Whats next, you're waiting for a moderator to take care of the issue, so you can pretend being a victim (that's called reflexive control, you should know about it). Заткнись! Now how about contributing something useful? There are hundreds of other features to enjoy, if you only want.

XP11 upgrade is free Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

SMP does not interact with your weather radar in any way; what it shows is based on X-Plane's internal weather, which should be consistent with the clouds we display. SMP also does nothing with visibility effects; we only draw clouds. So I think you're just seeing whatever X-Plane itself does there. I think you may want to consider purchasing Real Weather Connector; it exists to remove the sudden transitions when the weather changes, and allows you to see new cloud fronts ahead of you and fly into them naturally. That should solve what you're describing in #2.

Perhaps you could just shake your monitor up and down to simulate the experience you seem to be after?

I am beginning to suspect you hold the record for the most negative votes. I have certainly done my bit to help you with that record. Congratulations.

Rusny, Please verify that this sound file is installed... C:/Users/Rusny/Desktop/X-Plane 10/Aircraft/X-Aviation/Saab 340A/Passenger Variant/sounds/toggle.wav Also, the engine sounds DO NOT work in replay and never have. This is a known issue related to the X-Plane replay system. We may have an update/fix for this in future versions.

Captains, While the HotFix server is temporarily down, I have created a temporary installer solution which will update your current 737 to 1.0.7. Simply download and run the installer included in the zip. Click here to download. Thank you for your patience today as we worked through some things. Hopefully this helps to heal some of the waiting that's gone on!

Thanks. We're working on a new release, and tracking down those occasional texture artifacts is on my list already. Cloud shadows should work, however. I'll double check using your specific settings. *EDIT* - There was indeed a problem with shadows being cast from overcast cloud layers with "HD puffs" enabled. I've fixed this for our upcoming 4.1 release. I think I found the issue with the texture artifact you found as well.

Marshall explains how to temporary overcome a couple of these things in his latest video. (all his videos are excellent btw )

Hi, So I made a flight with the 733, upper winds were pretty calm, about 20 kts tailwind. The ZFW was 46 t, 7 tons of fuel on board. I had a cruise FL calculated to be FL360 and so said the FMC as optimal. Cost index 20 and the aircraft climbed pretty well until about FL230, then the climb performance was reduced a lot and it kept going up at around 500-1000 fpm maximum. Sometimes it completely halted the climb to gain some airspeed again. Very often the IAS was about 20-30 kts less than requested by FMC. Above FL300 the V/S went up to 1500-2000 fpm occasionally, then reduced agin to 0 or 500-1000. I'm asking this because I'm a real life ATC and we have several 735 and 733's flying around. I always see them climb about 2000-3000 fpm up to FL200 and then it continues to climb 1000-2000 fpm all the way up to FL360. They never reduce the rate to 0 to gain some IAS but perhaps rarely keep going at 1000 max when they are heavy. It just seems their climb performance in real is much better on higher levels. Any ideas? Otherwise just awesome aircraft and certainly above the rest in so many ways. Thanks, George

I only mentioned it because you mentioned IAS and IAS speed loss. I can say it also depends on your altitude you are climbing to. I've flown light to heavy jets and this is the typical behavior i've seen in regard to climb performance. In regards to optimum, I have always been in operations where you climb to 2000ft above optimum. If step climbing, I hang out till 2000ft below and repeat the process. If doing a constant cruise operation, again, I plan 2000ft above optimum. In these cases, I fly the recommended climb speeds and don't stray too far from it even if in a hurry. I've watched guys climb at too fast of a climb speed and couldn't make it until they reduced speed. On average when near optimum and above it, I see climb rates of 500 to 800 feet per minute. When climbing up to the aircraft's service ceiling, its about 300 feet per minute. When I see these type climb rates, I know i'm in the optimum altitude range and approaching the aircraft's performance limits. As you know, you don't want to be below the 500 feet per minute mark for ATC reasons. Here's a good real world operating tip. When climbing in mach in close to optimum, the plane tends to get pitchy when in VNAV or FLCH. When the plane starts to get loose in pitch, we select vert speed to settle it down. When in vert speed, you work the vert speed to maintain your climb speed. You can get in trouble really quick if you let the plane pitch too much. If you get behind the thrust curve, it can take a long time to get back on speed and climbing again. Plus the pitching gets aggressive and leads to overspeed or stalling. If the 737 is climbing correctly, these are good rules of thumbs to fly by.

LIKE WTF SURELY THEY COULD HAVE JUST FUCKING PORTED OVER THEIR FUCKING AWSM 737NGX INSTEAD THEY FUCKING ARE GONNA MAKE A SHIT OLD FUCK OF A DC6 WHAT THE FUCK

As a potential customer and now owner of the plane, I will admit I was disappointed when I read wing flex wasn't modelled. I did in the end buy it, but it did make me seriously think twice, and I sure hope it is added. I get "wing flex" is an easy (and now common) joke in our FS world, but also to simulate the plane to such a nice detail and ignore that a 95 foot wide slab of relatively thin metal doesn't flex is silly too. The simple gauges flounder about, so to me so should the wings a bit. With no wing flex, I feel like I am simply flying one of the static library objects honestly. I enjoy realistic procedures, but also watching outside or passenger views etc., particularly at this price point. Static wings are simply disappointing and show the dev is either lazy or ran out of time or resources. Obviously in this case, you haven't had the time yet, as you did a lot so well. I bought the plane despite not having wing flex, but I did hesitate once reading this feature was lacking. I don't think I'm alone. Please add them :-) Take care all!