Leaderboard

not very likely no. The cockpit texture, being the center of attention and in view for the majority of the time was optimized quite well for 96 DPI monitors IMO and still looks good......assuming a reasonable camera distance from surfaces. Also, since we did this work way back when, before Substance Painter was a thing...it'd be a massive undertaking to try that. Of course if you put the camera quite close to a surface, there will be 'jaggies', but philosophically, I'm not in that camp. I'd rather optimize performance for the 95% use case (pilot-ish viewpoint +/-) rather than the 5% use case (peruse 3D closeup under a microscope after buying). -tk

Tom and I met at FSExpo last weekend and planned the final steps we need to take before release.

Dear Captains, Has been a long time since the last update, but we have been working continuously, especially the last months. We are now at the point, that this might be the last developer's update before release. X-Plane 12 As you already know, a lot of things happened the last year; the biggest one, the release of X-Plane 12. We were participating in X-Plane 12 alpha testing, from day one, and while we were proving feedback to Laminar, we also testing DC-3's compatibility, and how we will react to this change. Initially, without knowing XP12 release date, we were planning to release for XP11. But around Autumn, with the X-Plane 12 beta out, it was obvious we had to support X-Plane 12 as well. In those testing days, we were continuously switching between X-Plane versions, to be sure that things work right for both simulators. But, with the new stuff X-Plane 12 brought, it was obviously that we cannot have a common aircraft for both versions. Even we tried to have a version with only what works in both version, but that was going to be a half-baked product, so was no go. Also we took a decision (read below), that would have made parallel development impossible. Given the extension of our development roadmap, we were sure that DC-3 release will happen after the official X-Plane 12 release. So, we decided to move forward and support only X-Plane 12. Introducing DC-3, Modern aircraft version! While all the above was going on, brainstorming together with our beta testers, we decided to create a second aircraft with more modern avionics. While the, the now named, DC-3 Classic gives you all the vibes of the 1940's technology, it was going to be hard, if not impossible to perform flights specially in online networks. Also, the newer, "Modern" aircraft is more accessible to more pilots, having instrumentation that is very well known, widely used. Of course, that does not mean, just drop a few instrument (idk... like G1000s ) and call it a day. Everything designed and developed to work as per manuals. Here what is new: Pilots' Stations: 1. Pilot's HSI: Bendix/King KI-525A. 2. Pilot's RMI: Bendix/King KNI-582 Dual Pointer RMI. 3. 2 Course Indicators, one for each pilot. 4. 2 independent KDI-572 DME indicators, one for each pilot. Radio Stack: 1. Bendix/King KAP-140 Autopilot - Two Axis with Altitude Preselect. 2. X-Plane's GNS 530, with support for RealityXP's 530, which also provides controls for COM1/NAV1. 3. Bendix/King KX-165A VHF COM/NAV transceiver, for COM2 and NAV2 tuning. 4. Bendix/King KT-73 Transponder. 5. 2 Bendix/King KR-87 Silver Crown ADF systems. All radios and autopilot are fully simulated and perform all normal operations, as described in their manuals. For the rest of the systems, they were updated were needed, and adapted to operate with the new aircraft. The maintenance and airframe systems, are also apply to the Modern aircraft as well. Conclusion We are reaching the final stretch of this development road, and will be very happy to provide you 2 aircraft, the Classic for the vintage aircraft enthusiasts, and the Modern, which is more capable, in terms of IFR operations. Time for a couple screenshot of the new aircraft, right? (of course still WIP!)

Boeing 737-300 American Airlines it really is a beautiful aircraft I remember flying from DR to curacao, (dont ask what airline it was, cause i was a kid, been too long. all i remember was the plane) ,monthly from santo domingo to curacao with my grandparents alot, this was back in the 90s, it was either, and a 727 and or a 737-200, always those 3 aircrafts

We are very close...

Looks amazing, I will be posting on FB and other forums to motivate people into it, wish you get a tons of order and keep as much motivated as possible on this... thank y'all so much to bring this all the way to XP12, more than happy to pay for this patch and looking forward to buy different versions like 400/500/F if that still a thing.

No closed beta, and no plans to call it an open beta at this time. While its been a lot of work porting things over, its been more about calibration of the flight model, flight testing and accomodating some new datarefs than a massive overhaul of the entirety of the system. We'll be on 'rapid standby' after release to address obvious issues though and get critical patches out quickly. -tkyler

Is it your first day in the flight simulation space? Nobody hits their goals/estimate. ini keep their mouth shut until the product is 99.9% complete, then announce a release date - that's completely different to what's going on here, where we've been kept up to date with the development along the way. It'll be ready when it's ready, and, as a long time user of the product, I'm grateful for that.

Well the MU-2 detour work didn't help.....but beyond that, in the world of custom engineering / design work, there are unknowns in the process. Perhaps the results we are able to get out of x-plane might not be what we want and we have to backtrack and try different techniques, or we make conscious choices to implement things we didn't plan on implementing initially. May be the software we use is giving us fits (*cough Substance Painter). In estimating efforts for stuff like this, I like to call such targets, "personal carrots" we dangle in front of our own faces to keep us moving and motivated. I can reel off a large list of custom efforts that went well beyond time and cost estimates ....by Boeing, NASA, Icon aircraft, Cirrus, Space-X ...really smart folks with billions of bucks to work with etc...so it just comes with the territory. We're happy when we get it right...and just keep our heads down when we don't. One example though....we have working cabin doors. You can open these doors via the GUI by clicking a checkbox to have the doors open/close. BUT....I guarantee some folks will want to open these doors more like the real thing, by grabbing the handles and rotating them. So....I put that feature in, and it was a bit more work than clicking my heels together 3 times....and when I did that, now the checkboxes via the GUI need to reflect the door state if opened by mouse first. If you open the door halfway with the mouse and then open the GUI dialog....what do you see then, what should the checkboxes show? What feels natural and logical? This disconnect between possible actuation methods caused animating 'jumps' and I had to run a bunch of tests to see what worked and felt logical and natural, and add custom code to handle all that and it just added some extra time, etc. But in the end, I know that the customers that like to move stuff with the mouse will be happy and those that don't care can still use the checkboxes. But until I tried it, I wasn't exactly sure what worked best. I have to view the interactivity in this example from the perspective of a LOT of customers with different preferences and expectations. In the end, its a win-win for all customers, at the expense of my time estimate being delayed because I decided to add in a feature I didn't before, etc. There's been a few other areas regarding lighting that didn't quite work out like I hoped, eating up too many FPS and I had to backtrack and make some changes there also. Until I tried it though, I wasn't sure what the performance cost would be..and the alternative method turned out to be quite a bit of work. So...its stuff like this that stretches the time estimates. Your comment though, that you love the product gives me confidence that my choices when doing the work are mostly the right ones, and taking the time to do it right, even if it goes past my estimates, are usually worth it. -tkyler

Those clouds on takeoff doesn't look realistic... where do I file a bug report?????

slow but steady on the lighting...this is cabin emergency lighting. XP12 has really opened up new opportunities with its lighting engine, though a learning process. Trying to balance lighting effects for a natural look across multiple x-plane 3D objects with multiple light sources is an exercise is patience for sure, but as a simmer since 1981, I can't say I mind. It fascinates me how far these graphics have evolved. -tkyler

based on my perception for trying to use my previous flight experience and trying to do something in X-plane: What a developer needs to work, usually is not the type of thing that pilots will focus when you need that information, or is extremely simplified because beyond that is irrelevant. If you have access to someone from engineering department you probably will be way, way more translate that knowledge into valuable data to the product. I'm not saying that pilots are not valuable into any of this projects. They do and have the capability of saying: "Hey, this actually behaves as close as the real thing" and confirm that it has a valid training effect. i.e. realistic. Everyone that I know never operated or were involved in the 717. And the few that handled the MD8x hated it to the heart.

Thx....but.......Jan didn't like it. "...that's not how I remember it" he said. (Thx Jan) sent me this... so here we are now....and still tweaking Jan's a tough one.