raven1982

Well said Hueyman and Oliver. Following your dreams is one of the most important lessons of life to learn. You might get a great job out of college but if you hate that job it really won't matter how much money you make. Happiness in the long run is something money can't buy. Follow your dreams and know, like said above, the road may not always be what you expected but have that end goal in sight. Always! I'm 31 now but have been around aviation all of my life. After a short break from college I returned and graduated at 25, went from job to job after graduation. After some years and a lot of unhappiness I decided to pursue aviation since I always came back to it. Now I am a CFI, just passed the practical test in October, and have five students with more on the way. I'm not making the same money I made elsewhere but I am so much happier than I was before. Keep your head up and keep working towards you goals.

Realism.... that is a tough one when it comes to flight sims, or any sim for that matter. I want to step in with my experience so far and try to tackle issues of realism and our interpretation. The ability for us as humans to perceive a flight simulator (whatever simulator) vs flying the aircraft in real life are fundamentally different. Given, a $75,000 simulator can give a good "feel," it comes down to the person/pilot. We all have our own "perceptions" and come about them differently depending on what we place the highest level importance on. Some of us might be looking for the best flight model (Judging a flight model of an aircraft "you" have not flown is an issue of personal ideas of what you "think" is correct), others might want specific systems, and so on. In reality I have only flown about 3% of the aircraft available to X-Plane so far in my career. I have many hours in Cessna 172s, Piper Arrows, Piper Seminole, Super Decathlons, 172 RG, and Diamond Twin Stars. When I fly these aircraft X-Plane or FSX they are never like the real thing. They are similar replications of the aircraft, because of that fact I judge the sim add-on on how well it represents the entirety of the aircraft. The judging is based on a realistic (Manufacturer POH expectations of the aircraft), systems, and if the systems actually work the way they are supposed to. With all of that said there is room for interpretation of a "Good Flight" model as long as you are comparing to (Your) real life experience and/or the manufacturers POH (Pilot Operating Handbook). Systems on the other hand are a separate issue. Systems are not open for interpretation, they either work as they should or do not. The last point I want to bring up is simulation hardware. If your yoke is broken or not working properly, the sim will not behave like it should. Also, you will most likely have to change hardware sensitivities to make the add-on behave realistically. I sell hardware and test it as well, in the end, we the end user have a responsibility to fine tune our equipment if "we" want the simulation to be realistic.

There are a couple of people that are working on an X for X-Plane but I think they are taking shape at a snails pace. The Citation X vs any other Citation has major hull differences, not just steam vs glass.

It is on par with other CArenado aircraft like Wolf said. Extremely simple to fly and fun with short field landings. If you like single engine aircraft and something that can haul a load, this aircraft is a good choice. @Ben Wolf - You a commercial pilot out of SFO? Been looking to make my way back to the Bay Area now that my CFI is done.

@ Hueyman X-Plane still does not take advantage of everything, you are correct. I have tested it on some higher end pc's all the way down to my four year old Alienware laptop. The FPS issue will only get better over time and with better code/updates from Austin and others. This conversation reminds me of the evolution of V 9 from beginning to end, and how FPS improved. A side note. My favorite thing to watch is the amount of memory being used by X-Plane 10. I have compared the 10 to 9 and the bandwidth being used. After testing one vs. the other, I can lower 10 to 1/4 (to X-Plane 9) and still not match the FPS of X-Plane 9 at the higher bandwidth.

Yes they do allow for that when accompanied by an FAA approved BATD/AATD. Which NAV Aids are you having issues with? I practice IFR approaches on the East Coast and West Coast and have noticed more often that NAV Aids are available when they should not be. Also, if you are looking to log time I know that laws vary from one country to the next. Some countries just require an FAA cert software, while others just want the hardware to meet certain specs.

Have you tried updating the Nav info. Works pretty well for me. Also, you mentioned proficiency. Are you trying to log the time towards you IFR proficiency?

Can't wait to see some new photos! This almost feels like dating, and we are only getting to first base.

For those that have the aircraft, does the CHT work properly on the C340? I know that a few of the aircraft the CHT is set only to rpm and not matched with Cowl Flaps as well. @steven winslow - Yeah, it is not really working! The only part that makes it work is the heat during the day in the Hangers. Come see me at the Saitek booth in Hanger C, my name is Joseph Szpak.

Okay is very true. After all the version 8.XX and 9.XX I thought we would have gotten a better 430 but no luck yet. There are so many other issues to be worked out with X-Plane 10 still that it will take a separate entity to develop the GNS 430 to the next step. I would rather see a move to the GTN 650/750 but those are a whole other issue for coding. Oh, program in GPS approaches would be great! Sorry for the off topic addition. I plan on buying the C340 after I get back from working Oshkosh.

X-Plane 9 should run between 19-28 fps with those aircraft and scenery. What are the laptops prices? Have you looked at an MSI laptop with a Nvidia 660GTX?

Thank you for the update! That image is so beautiful and reminds me of how much I miss that region! I cannot wait for the release of this product so I can re-fly some of those beautiful routes.

Thanks for the update Tom. When it is finished it is finished and I will rejoice. Until then, I will stay busy with my CFI training. @Dozer - I admit that GPS can be somewhat cheater in a sim, but with how prevalent they are in cockpits today a GPS system needs to be even better rendered than ever. I truly wish that the stock X-Plane 430 was more like the real one and not a one trick (direct only) pony.

Which yoke? The Pro Flight Yoke or the Cessna Yoke? And, is it brand new or used? One last question, are you running Window, Linux, or Mac? The OS should not matter since I know other have used Saitek products on all platforms, but some people have had issues.

The Pro flight profile as stated above might be a waste. The use of trial and error within X-Plane is your best bet. Not to mention it decreases the number of possible conflicts.

Well, when the product is done and ready for purchase please let us know! Can't wait to see that beautiful region again!

It might get an update later on just like other aircraft have seen. She flies alright. If you like the one from X-Plane 9 better use Plane maker and the Air Foil make to update the aircraft and then import it to X-Plane 10.

glad to see things are coming along and that the airport IDs will be up to date. Really looking forward to this great product! I miss the Bay Area a lot and Nor Cal!

I Am very interested in the Titan for building a new pc specifically for Flight simming. I think the Titan is a great solution but I also think back to the major fps issues in X-Plane 9 that took time to resolve. In time X-Plane 10 will run a lot smoother than it does now and maybe then the Titan will be too much power. What am I saying, too much power? No such thing!

Torque effect has always been an issue. Also, check your wind speeds at the airport you are flying. If the winds are above about seven knots some aircraft will react unrealistically. Torque and crosswind issues are always there and are tough to pinpoint. The stock 172 has just as much torque, but that is a bad overall comparison. One other issue might be tire friction and pavement,

Have you tried looking here for more photos to model after? http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=527

Can't wait guys! Can't stand the auto gen buildings in large cities since they sverely kill my FPS!

So I sent a private message on the .org to inquire about the Aspen and this is the response I got. "The Aspen PFD has about the same functionality as the one published for FSX. It is completely programmed from scratch. (Otherwise, the 2D pop-up window wouldn't work). It is highly functional, including running on battery power, which slowly depletes, when there's no power to the unit, multiple settings, including speed bugs, moving map preferences, and other settings that get saved to file, and get called up at next aircraft load. The position and size of the 2D pop-up window also gets saved. There's very little this EFD1000 does not do in this simulation; the real one is able to interact with other units, to display stuff in reversionary mode, and to complement the other displays. The way this one's used in the Bonanza is pretty much as functional as it would be in a similar real-life installation. " I am still on the fence about purchasing the aircraft but if I do I will post a video with the functionality included on youtube.

I would love to see a fully functioning PC-12 NG model for X-plane 10.