Pete_SMS

Here is a shot of the seatbelts you will use in the Beaver... "Hey you autopilot lovers". Do you see what is sitting on the pilot panel? A brandnew STEC50 just for you ...and all the others can just hide it or use the vintage version of the Beaver, which you will see soon as well. I guess this will make some of you happy and that makes me happy. In the end it is all about you and what you like, and not about me. As long as I am doing what I love and I am passionate about it, I will try my best to create a great user experience for you.

Have you tried if planemaker will show your obj file? I know its probably a building, but it would just be a check if X-Plane can read your file.

Did you use export script 3.20 with your 2.58? When you exported your mesh, did it say "100% done"? When you open the exported obj file with an editor, does the file structure look OK? From my point of view it is important to have an understanding of the obj8 format as you can check for errors or strange stuff directly in the "code". After all, the obj file is just a text file.

OK, the chances that you will get your STEC50 autopilot in the modernized Beaver just increased. After the second coffee this morning, I figured that I can deselect my control surface override flag, as soon as someone gives power to the A/P. The Beaver control surfaces are then driven again by X-Plane, based on planemaker settings. In this case, I can also use the internal autopilot logic. Just checked it and it is working. Therefore, I will be able to replicate the STEC50 A/P behaviour without too much efford. I won't use it, but I know some off you will. For the people that also won't like to see an A/P in the modernized version, there will be the option to hide it. However, don't expect to see an A/P or a GPS in the vintage Beaver cockpit. This will be for real hands on pilots only.

Yes, Beavers with an A/P these days use the STEC 50 or 60 most of the time and if I put something in the modernized Beaver, it would most probably be the STEC50. Also, I would make this A/P hidden by default and it could be made visible via a clickspot, so people who don't like to see that A/P can get rid of it. However, like I said before, I am going to override all X-Plane flight control surfaces by my flight model plug-in (ailerons, rudder, elevators, trim controls, flaps etc.). That means that they are not connected to X-Plane internals anymore, and I have to take care of driving them myself. I have to read the joystick input, keyboard etc. and move the flight control surfaces accordingly. That also means, that even if you assign buttons to the X-Plane internal autopilot, it will not work, as X-Plane can not drive control surfaces, because they are overriden. You might say "Well then don't override the flight control surfaces", but that is not really an option, because I want to have full control of them myself, without being limited by planemaker settings and internal logic. So that is no option. Most of the add-ons probably use the X-Plane default autopilot and it will be tuned in planemaker. However, I will not have that option, due to the overriden control surfaces. That means the full autopilot control logic has to be coded by me. I can not use any of the default stuff. Well, the technology and coding is no problem for me, but it is a good amount of extra work. Also this is no problem for me. However, I am thinking about if it is really worth it, because I could use that time to make the Beaver as an aircraft the best it can be, with respect to the flight model, the engine and systems simulation and things that will increase the immersion factor even more. The Beaver is a hands on aircraft and usually doesn't make VERY long trips , and I can not really imagine that someone wants to fly a nice and beautiful aircraft with an autopilot. That's like raising your hand for a ride in the backseat of a beautiful car, when you would have had the option to drive it.

Thanks for all the feedback so far, with respect to the autopilot! Just before the weekend, I wanted to show you the Beaver equipped with 35'' tundra tires and the small change to the fairing, but detail is everything. The Alaska cargo door has not been cut in yet, but you will see it soon. Also that last passenger seat row will go, so you have more space for your cargo. ...and a further shot of the amphibian cockpit. Still a few items missing, but 90% done.

Thanks Steph. There is still a good amount of work infront of me, but I hope you will enjoy it when it is ready.

Hey Carlos, Muchas gracias por estas palabras amistosas. Muy apreciada.

OK, here comes an important question. Who would like to see an autopilot in the modernized Beaver and also important is why you would like to have it. The modernized cockpit is reaching its final state and either the AP goes in or it stays out. Since I am overriding the control surfaces and have to take care of everything myself, an AP would mean that I have to code the control laws myself which is a good amount of extra work. So do you want one and why would you want to fly a hands on bush plane like the Beaver with an AP. My feeling is currently against it. Not because of the extra work, but it doesnt feel right at the moment. However, maybe there are valid reasons to have one. So, let me hear your voices...

Thanks for the feedback! @Osprey Thanks for the wishes, and maybe one day your wish may be fullfilled. However, at the moment it is already a lot of work for all the different versions. It's not one aircraft, its three at the same time. The Beaver project is progressing nicely so far and the visual things are more easy to show at the moment. When the 3d models and textures for all the different versions are in place, and when I have animated and exported everything properly, the hardcore work under the hood will start with not so much to show off visually. My workflow might be a little different compared to other developers. I make sure that the 3D model is as accurate as possible, based on factory drawings, CAD models or what ever resource I have at hand. Based on the 3D model, I refine my "rough" planemaker model and make it exactly like the 3D model. The nice thing about it is, that I established a workflow which allows me to extract all the geometry data, required by planemaker, from the 3d model and Blender. So I don't have to work with backdrops, but just pure numbers. This approach serves two purposes. It is much more motivating for me to fly in the real and finished cockpit, in order to do my flight model, engine and systems development, testing and refinements and on the other hand, I will spend a good amount of time in the cockpit and visual flaws or other problems can be recognized earlier and can be corrected on the fly. I don't have to wait until this baby goes into beta testing. I will establish more like a "continuous" development and integration process for myself. Systems, flight model and engine programming is on the way already as well. I kind of had a head start, because I was working on a different project earlier this year, which is for sure not forgotten, and did a lot of plug-in testing, proof of concepts, prototyping and so on. This is still sitting on my hard drive and is VERY helpful for the Beaver as well, but not so easy to show on the forums yet. However, I will constantly keep you up to date about what is happening and where I am at. I either do that in writing, by showing pictures and by creating little videos for you, to show things. These videos will not be like promotional videos. It will be short tech demo videos. The promotional video will come shorty before the release There will be also things I won't talk about or mention during the development process. These will be reavealed when the Beaver is ready for release. First of all, I guess you like to be surprized and secondly, I don't want to tell everybody what I am planning and what kind of ideas I have. Your feedback on the forum is much appreciated and I also like to hear your stories, why you think the Beaver as an aircraft is great, why you would love to fly it in X-Plane, what would be nice to have in the X-Plane world for this aircraft. Create a little world around this gorgeous aircraft if you like. Your stories and feedback will help to make this aircraft the best it can be and I care about that. Again, thanks for all the nice feedback so far. It is very motivating and reminds me everyday why I am doing this.

Thought you might like to see the regular tire version The tundra tire version will have nice 35'' tires and a Alaska cargo door, with enough room inside to put your cargo.

Oh yes, that is correct. You can control the aileron droop through planemaker. However, I am overriding all control surfaces with my flight control plug-in and that means, I have to take care of everything myself, because they are no longer "connected" to the X-Plane internals. This is why I said, that I control this part also via a plug-in. Overriding the flight control surfaces gives me much more control and flexibility than pure planemaker settings and I can basically simulate any effect I could think of, if done right, and I make sure it is

I added the aileron droop mechanism to the flight model today. This has to be controlled via a plug-in. The ailerons of the Beaver will droop with flap deflection, down to a maximum of 15 deg for full flaps. Initial testing gave me a stall speed 5 mph lower than the no droop aileron. Pretty cool and shows that my concept is working. Needs to be fine tuned, of course. Aileron droop is usually implemented to supplement the flaps, allowing a lower stall speed. However, this can bite you, because it will reduce your aileron authority. If you turn final with a steep bank angle and set full flaps at the same time, you might run into a problem. Due to the reduced aileron control authority, you might not be able to level your wings quick enough. I have to check how bad it is for the Beaver, and will then implement it as per aircraft.

Thanks for the comments. My network around this beautiful aircraft is growing and I am getting more and more information every day. I have met fantastic people so far, and I highly appreciate the time and knowledge they share with me. I couldn't ask for more. I will use all this, to make a great simulation of the Beaver and this beauty truly deserves it!

@Arnaud No problem at all Arnaud! Actually, I know how you meant it, since we have spoken quiet a few times before, but I had to clarify that. Good to know about the PM issue. Have to check that. Your Chip is coming along nicely. Really looking forward to it.

Arnaud, this has nothing to do with marketing on my side. Very far from it. I stand for other things than developing what sells best and you should know that.

For me, it was just a matter of time until Aerosoft would consider to do a XP version of the Beaver, and there is nothing wrong with it. Even I expected it, I have chosen to develop the Beaver, because it is one of my favorite aircraft and my favorite bush plane of all times. The most important thing for me is, that I work on something I love and I hope this love will show in the final product. Actually, I am pretty sure that it will. I don't do all this, because I want to or have to make only profits, and due to this fact, I can do things and develop extra functionalities other companies probably can't consider. If this results in sales, I would be happy about it, because I could use it to create even better products in the future and to further increase the user experience. The biggest satisfaction for me would be to put a big smile on the users face and to give her or him hours and hours of fun. This is not just a saying for me. I really mean it that way and this is what SoulMade Simulations stands for. So these news are not changing anything for me. I know why I am doing this, I have my goals and I will make sure I will meet them. If Aerosoft decides to develop a XP Beaver, I seriously wish them all the best and I guess there is nothing wrong having maybe two versions in the end, and it is up to the user to make a decision. OK....what else is new. The external model of the amphibious version is more or less done and you can see it in the picture below. Have a look at the "ropes" on the wings, which are so typical for the float and amphibious version. Oh, you are asking if they will be animated and swing around in the airflow while flying....you bet! Edit: typo

Close-up of the front section, showing the prop and some other details on the Beaver....

Patience, young Jedi Yip, normal and specular maps will be used where necessary.

Glad you like the Beaver so far. It is funny that you ask for 66Z, because I have that livery on my list. However, I want to ask Kenmore Air if I may use their livery, as I am not sure if it is allowed to use any paint job. I am kinda new in this business and don't want to do anything stupid. Kenmore Air supported me with some nice cockpit pictures, so I hope that isn't a problem either. As for the paint kit, I am planning to release a color neutral white livery as well, without any placards or paint on it, so everybody can create her or his favorite livery, if there is a need to do so. I know that you would like to do that. Oh, you would like to see the prop.....hmmmm...let me see what I can do.....give me an hour

Seats moved into the Beaver and a last shot for today, using the rest of light shining through hangar doors during sunset....

Also not completely sure what you wanna know. To separate pieces from an object, select them and press P, like Kieran said. If you have multiple items you want to move around, I would creat a group, using Ctrl+g. Then you can easily select the group by using Shift+G and then selecting the group. Border select using B can become tedious if you have lots of objects in different locations.

Simon, that looks great so far and I am glad that you find the tutorial useful. Hey, we have the same friend...Cntrl-R.

This morning in the Beaver restoration hangar.... Seats lined up, in order to see if they fit into the Beaver, before they will be finally moved in. Pretty heavy these guys. Probably have to ask the guy in the other hangar, who is working on his warbird, to help me.

Very true. I just realized that I could have deleted all top and bottom faces of the poles, saving another 650 polys. So you could have easily done this model with 3000 polys or less, while keeping a clean topology without all these triangles. While triangles are not necessarily bad for low ploy models, they are your enemy when you are planning sub d's. Not necessary here, but in this case they boost up your poly count.