Leaderboard

I can't speak for every dev in the world, but I can tell you that the 8-12 hour day you mentioned is pretty much what's going on for devs under the X-Aviation umbrella. I would assume there's a number of the same from other stores. I'll just add that I found the v10 to v11 transition to be quite a bit less cumbersome. PBR was the biggest hurdle for most of us, but that was manageable. OBJ lighting changes was another. v12 seems to be incredibly more involved, but I do believe that to also be due to things @daemotron outlined. Devs are getting more and more comfortable writing plugins and pushing boundaries. It's great, but when we have major version changes like v12, it's a heck of an effort to get things functioning properly. I don't think a lot of customers realize this, and I know Laminar didn't help that cause when they tried to sell v12 as having backwards compatibility for v11 stuff.

I wouldn't say the transition from 9 to 10 or 10 to 11 was smoother than the transition from 11 to 12. In all these transitions, the closer an aircraft model was built with Laminar's tools alone (i.e. PlaneMaker), the transition was easier to accomplish than for aircraft with loads of custom stuff - but easier doesn't mean as easy as just saving the acf file in the new planemaker version. With each major release (and many minor releases, too), Austin has modified the flight physics, or the engine model. So even for "barebone" planemaker aircraft models, that meant and means many hours of testing and tweaking parameters, until you have beaten the physics back into submission. If you add more complexity (custom logic coded into plugins, or beautiful 3d and textures), there are these aspects as well that you need to take care of. I have no proof for my theory, but my assumption is that at the end of X-Plane 11, most payware aircraft models were far more complex than they were at the end of X-Plane 10. Towards the end of XP10, plugins were mainly used by highly sophisticated aircraft models and airliners, many small GA aircraft were built without plugins (or using simple, standard stuff like a scroll wheel plugin). Nearly all use custom plugin logic these days, and sophisticated 3d and texturing is a must have as well. For us pilots, this is great, because it means we get better, more realistic aircraft models to fly and study, bringing out their best (and worst). A Piper not only looks differently to a Cessna, it also perceptibly flies differently to one. We have options to get different instrument panels and avionics, we get EFBs and load managers, etc. However there's a price tag on all these great features: developers have not only to re-adjust flight physics and engine behaviour, but also rework their textures (to adapt to the new lighting engine) and rework their custom plugins to adapt to SDK changes. At the end of XP 10's life cycle, the technical challenge was similar - Laminar introduced a new lighting model (PBR), which forced developers to redo all their texture work. The engine model didn't change with 11.00, but (iirc) with 11.10 - suddenly a lot of aircraft using the free shaft turboprop engine model burst into flames when you tried starting the engine(s). Also early in the 11 release cycle Laminar released a new SDK, introducing a bag full of changes. Basically things were similar like now - a lot of changes came with the first release, but quite a few changes didn't make it, and were introduced later in minor releases (anyone remembers the debate about prop wash and taildraggers...?). However, the total available fleet of payware aircraft was significantly smaller back then, and it was again a lot smaller when XP10 saw its first release. My view on all this: X-Plane evolves with every minor and major release, and this is a good thing (much better than a "dead" platform anyway, though I can see that it would be beneficial for third party developers if those changes came in a more predictable and structured fashion). Just look how far X-Plane has evolved in the past 10 years; it's really amazing. In the same time, pay- and freeware aircraft also evolved significantly, becoming more and more complex, offering more and more features. This definitely is a huge challenge for third-party developers though, constantly forcing them to evolve, too. So it's only fair if they use the major release steps as time markers to ask for an upgrade fee - supporting a product throughout an X-Plane major release usually means adapting a couple of times to improvements and shenanigans Austin is coming up with, eating up precious development time that would otherwise never be compensated by corresponding revenues.

WOW! Same here, no smoke or drink and no drugs. Our house is paid for. I do have a wife and she is the greatest woman in the world in my eyes. Kids are gone. Flight simulation is all I do everyday , all day. The only thing I work at is my weight. Not very active, so I really have to watch what and how much I eat daily. 5'11" tall and 200 lbs, I have a beer gut, but I do not drink. I am working very hard to lose weight and get below 200 lbs. The main reason I not buying aircraft is because one I have been saving for a new computer and two my wife and I are tight wads.

yes, a bug with X-Plane's TPE model for sure...they'll go into reverse eventually, but I've seen it take as long as 10 seconds, quite incorrect. It has been filed and there is some type of fix in the next X-Plane update, which rumor has will be released in a few days; however, until I test it, I'm not sure what the behavior will be. I had a short exchange with Philipp, the programmer of the TPE engine and given the limited exchange, I can't say for sure he understood and/or agreed with how I suggested it be modeled, so I'm not sure what to expect. The reverse should be darn near instantaneous with lever movement...this is due to the way the hydraulic circuit of the 'pitch sleeve' works. I've been waiting on this fix for a bit....fingers crossed. If not, I guarantee I'll be knocking on Laminar's door again. Philipp has actually done quite a good job of modeling this engine, it worked great in V11, but I believe he added a few more accurate features like NTS lockout etc. and somewhere in the last few patches, reverse in the TPE implementation got broke. I used to custom model this stuff myself, but I've known Philipp for a good many years and he's extremely capable and as Laminar adds more accurate engine behaviors, then the more custom behaviors I have to 'pull out' of my plugin code so they don't clash, but in doing so, I defer to their implementation in some areas. Now having worked with these guys in years past though, they're quite agreeable to suggestions and improvements and I fully expect we'll get this one ironed out.....and I do hope its in this next update from X-Plane. -tkyler

You didn't. Remember, "A good (sim) pilot is always learning". My rant/blub wasn't intended for you personally, although I did preface with your name. I tend to imagine a great deal of folks reading through some of these post and thus learn something (or at least entertain another opinion). Since simming is the only thing I spend money on, I tend to go for it. I don't drink or smoke so I consider this my vice. That's why I'm quick to pickup sim stuff. House is paid for, kid is grown and gone, oh yeah... no wife. Nevertheless, this isn;t about how many aircraft we have, or who can afford this or that. It's about a passion, learning and most of all, having fun. So no, I don't think you are tasting your leathery foot.

Rick, I think most 3 party devs are more frustrated than we are with the changes LR has made to XP12 - pray-tell it'll be worth the pain in the end. Many were promising free upgrades from XP11 to XP12. The upgrade from XP10 to XP11 was straightforward, from what I've heard. The upgrade to XP12 is bumpy and curvy. The devs didn't anticipate the guts of the sim to be as radically different from XP11 as it turned out. In fact, many thought they'd be able to have the XP12 versions of their aircraft deployed within days. At this point, it is going on months and we're still waiting on some aircraft. The good news is that most GA aircraft that rely on LR's G430, G530 and G1000 were able to get released relatively quickly. More complex aircraft seem to have be rewritten. I've been following the progress of the 737-300 by IXEG and have recently started reading a blog by X-Crafts. Both have given examples of how something that seemly should have taken a day or so to do, turned into weeks. The difference is that one developer has chosen to release his product in a "good enough" state with known bugs and a commitment to fix them, while the other has chosen to squash as many bugs as possible before releasing it. I'm waiting on my beloved TBM900. Since I haven't been following the redevelopment of the airplane, it's easy to assume that the dev has moved on or just taking his sweet time. However, I know better. Many devs have multiple offerings and limited time and resources. After flying a rushed plane, I've decided that I'd rather be patient than to rush them. The question whether to charge for the XP12 version is a tough one. I can see why it's hard to just give away, for free, months and months of reworking logic, and testing code (only to have the sim change and break the code and have to start again). Tools like Planemaker won't cut (alone) it in today's simming environment. Planemaker, IMO, is a great learning tool for someone who's getting started and want to make a cartoonish looking airplane with default datarefs and, drop-in avionics... but what do I know? I'm not a dev. Complex aircraft require complex programming logic and rigorous testing. I, for one, don't mind paying a dev for their work if it delivers the value I crave, even if it means paying for an aircraft twice (within reason).

I'd say things are definitely settling down for sure.....but you never know. I'm not expecting any sweeping changes. -tk

Hi, I see you also offer optional analoge engine gauges. What about the Autopilot with the A/P CMD engage paddles Lufthansa and Southwest were using. Could this be modeled?

This is not a preview, this is a show off (ps: need this on my hangar asap)

I seem to recall that one of the goals of this aircraft is to give virtual pilots an idea of what the Challenger pilots actually do. I think they did a great job from arriving at an FBO to returning to the FBO after a flight. Admittedly, I don't tend to do a proper walk-around but I do remove the covers and pins. The save state feature is awesome. It allow for quick flights, if used, giving us the ability to skip C&D starts (you'll be required to do a C&D start at least once then you can save it). For newbies, Reflected Reality Simulations and Foxtrot Alpha Aviation YouTube channels are great resources for getting started. Thanks to everyone who had a hand in bringing the CL650 to virtual life!!!

Challengers don’t have windscreen wipers.

for me the challenger 650 is the best study-level aircraft on the market, among all simulators including, in addition to having a great design and avionics, the study-level aircraft is perfect even for those who are students of aeronautical engineering. what is missing is just the weather radar system and the wipers, only these details make the challenger the perfect aircraft.