Malchaeus

Toss in my vote for a nicely done Cessna 402. Would love to see one of those.

Oh, very nice! Really looking forward to this one.

Took the B17 from Newfoundland to Great Britain with a stop in the Azores. Sucking fumes at each landing but loads of fun to navigate that plane across millions of square miles of empty ocean. Thank God for VOR's and accurate chronometres.

Excellent. Love that Lancair promo. Think I'll go fly the Corvallis.

Paraffin, that's it exactly. I live in eastern Colorado, and to not see the rocky mountains until you reach the front range foothills is weird. Greeley might as well be in Nebraska.

Is that the payware or freeware pacman?

Thank you indeed. Works nicely.

Yep. That livery is hot! I'd be tempted to default to that one.

I'm on the road at the moment, so I can't test this, but on most (all?) planes if you go into your weather settings and select hPa in the bottom left corner then the sim will output hPa on the digital instruments as well. Might be worth trying.

Looks like the work of them foo fighters to me, yes'sir! And Cap'n . . . Who in the world are you talking to?!

Here's a stupid suggestion because I know you've probably done this; but working in tech support for a while taught me that even the best of people sometimes forget the most mundane step . . . Do you have the X-Plane 9 DVD in your drive and mounted? If not, there's the whole six minute demo time limit you'll run into. Feel free to slap me now

Crazy sweet! Can you provide service from Denver to Minneapolis? When will you start selling tickets?

Whoa! A 24 ft screen!

I'm getting a significant drop in fps when I turn on the nav and strobe lights. I go from 30-35 fps down to 19 in a heartbeat. I'm on an old G5, but it's pretty gutsy for an old girl. 2.3ghz dual, Nvidia 7800GT with 256 VRAM, 6 gigs RAM. Have pixel shaders off, which helps a lot. Flies beautifully without lights on, though. Just have to stay VFR It could very well be my machine. Just seems odd that only the lights do it. Seems like such a simple thing.

I agree wholeheartedly. It should be an option. And that goes both ways. I end up tossing any plane that doesn't at least try to faithfully emulate the real plane's systems, understanding that X-Plane places limits on developers that aren't easily overcome without a thorough knowledge of programming. But, effort counts. With regards to the An-2, I love having a plane that will actually seize an engine if if don't manage it properly. Love that! But I know a lot of people don't, so I'm glad the plugin can be disabled while leaving the plane "fully" functional. That is one fine model.

Well said Tom. For me, whether it's a GA or a fighter or a heavy, the keyword is 'simulation'. I want it to look, feel, and work like the real deal. One of my best friends, however, sees me going through the checklists and thinks it's the most boring thing he's ever seen and goes back to his WOW. He'll fly if I get him airborne first, otherwise he just glazes over. I however think 'start on the runway with engines and systems running' is an abomination!

My preference? Make that bugger as close to the real thing as you can, give me a 200 page POH, let me spend a week learning it and I'm happy as a clam. I think most planes available are simple enough you don't need to keep them in your head. You hop in the cockpit and say "Oh, yeah. I know this one." the sheer number of simple planes available makes it hard to feel like I'm limited. I feel limited in my experience when an airliner is as simple to fly as a 172. I like beefy systems.

Ah, a moment of clarity. I thought the JCS version just released was Greg's. Should read more carefully. I haven't flown the 104 yet. Heard it was a bit of a frame hog, which makes me feel "iffy" about putting money into it. But if the 104's reviews are anything to go by, Greg's F-16 should be amazing.

Too true. I'm watching this one to see how buyers respond. Fighters have never seemed very popular around the X-universe, but it's hard to say whether its a supply or demand problem. Plenty of people have told me, "you have to try so-and-so's plane!" but I've been largely unimpressed with the fighters available to this point. There are a couple exceptions, which fly fine and are exciting to take through the Grand Canyon, but by-and-large, there's a serious fighter deficit in the sim. I hope the F-16 changes that.

I agree wholeheartedly! When I saw United's name on a Continental livery I thought someone was an idiot and didn't know the difference between the two. When I learned it was accurate, I knew who the idiots really were Both these new paints are a massive improvement over the current one. I'm looking forward to seeing what others come up with.

Twin Otter's cool, but it's nothing like a C421. There's a somewhat decent Beech twin at the org, but it's still lacking the payware quality finish. It also seems to have stalled in development. The Citation X currently available flies nice, but comes nowhere near the quality we're seeing emerge these days. Who, by the way, is developing the Twin Otter?

I have three choices: 1) Mooney M20, especially the souped-up "rocket" 2) Cessna 421 or comparable twin 3) Cessna Citation X Seems any one of these could fill an obvious gap in the sim. I could rejoice over a C130 as well. Or if anyone's doing heli's, I'd love a ch53 super stallion.