eaglewing7

How on earth does this guy get a commercial pilot licence, and not know how to recover any aircraft from a dive? Is it really rocket science?

Great aircraft as well, definitely a must have in X-Plane, especially a high quality version.

Sounds good.

How about the Douglas A-26 Invader. A very nice, and fast World War Two aircraft, both bomber, and what I would call a semi-fighter bomber aircraft. And if you'd like to make it I have a POH for the aircraft.

A while back when there was talk about the different liveries to be included with this aircraft Pacific Coastal Airlines came up, and at the time I remember something about there not being any good shots of the tail art on the aircraft. Here are some shots I'm sure Theo will be glad to see if he is considering making any Pac Coastal liveries. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/Saab-340A/1720929/L/&sid=ce75e91a219c589c27a1e6a6b24e7f2e http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/Saab-Fairchild-SF-340A/1395618/L/&sid=ce75e91a219c589c27a1e6a6b24e7f2e http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/Saab-Fairchild-SF-340A/1238765/L/&sid=ce75e91a219c589c27a1e6a6b24e7f2e http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/Saab-Fairchild-SF-340A/1216506/L/&sid=ce75e91a219c589c27a1e6a6b24e7f2e

Just wondering what you mean by "lacking system depth"? As far as I am concerned there isn't exactly a whole heck of a lot of systems within the Hurricane, it was a relatively simple fighter from that period. And at that, the Hurricane that Nils made was exemplary, and still is, even though it still does not use all of the latest eye candy like his updated BK-117 does...

To be honest, when Heinz's P-51 and Spitfire were released, they were great. But, they haven't been updated for a few versions (the most current version for both is Version 9.30+), and they are showing there age... I would love to see a developer like Nils D. come in and model both of those aircraft to the same quality as his Hurricane, which is also getting to the point of needing an update to be fully compatible with 9.60+.

You can use the X-52 as a control quite well. Loosen the throttle right up for the collective, and then for the cyclic, take the fighter stick control and using cable ties pull up the plastic thing under the spring and secure it up in the air. Then you will get a completely loose non-centreing stick for your use, and no need to spend a ton of money on helicopter specific controls. Unless of course you don't want to use the throttle in the X-52, then you could buy a throttle quadrant and use the throttle slider as a collective, still not the most realistic, but it does work.

Random failure? Icing? From the look of things something has either failed, or your plane has iced over probes and that could cause the erratic readouts...

Nice work on the video, and an excellent plane! One thing I noticed was that the canopy was missing in the initial shots. And then in some of the early flying footage the Ram Air Turbine and the Tail Hook are both deployed. Also in some of the cockpit footage the artificial horizon is not set up correctly or off (which can make it really difficult to accurately fly the plane), and at another point I saw that the radar was off altogether, making it very difficult if you try to fly extremely low to the deck... All in all very nice work!

I think that would be due to the 3-D prop. From what I can remember Nils' Hurricane exhibits the same behaviour when looking at it above, and around clouds, but only if the prop "covers" a cloud...

If you get the chance try and read "The Chosen Ones - Test Pilots In Action", by Sean Rossiter. It has an excellent account of the Twin Otter test program, and how the chief test pilot ran the prototype Otter right at the docks in Toronto harbour, and then just as people began to get worried, engaged the reversers and pulled up like nothing happened...

Would it be safe to assume that this would be the DHC-6-300 series, seeing how the -400 series is using a lot more modern instrumentation (possibly even some glass cockpit style panels, but I can't remember at the moment...).

It's called 'Honor' from Pacific. And an excellent choice no matter the occasion! Truly an awe inspiring piece of musical genius, I see this theme becoming a very popular choice for similar videos.

Beautiful video, and an amazing looking model. Just have to ask what music/song was playing in the background during the video?

Try and set both aircraft's altimeters to the same settings, as this is often what causes aircraft to be above or below ground when online. Also, make sure that both computers either have sloped runways on or off.

Within your rendering options you have the anti-aliasing, antisotropic-filter textures, water reflection, and texture resolutions set at the maximum settings. Try turing these all down a level or more each, these all (especially anti-aliasing, antisotropic and water reflections), all take a heavy toll on the performance of the sim. Also, volumetric fog, and drawing hi-res textures from orbit can also be turned off with you noticing almost no changes in eye candy, but noticeable changes in performance. Try some of these suggestions, and see what happens.

The log.txt is a text file compiled by X-Plane to report normal operations, and any errors that occur. It can be found under your main X-Plane folder, when found zip it up and post it here, someone will take a look at it and figure out what is going wrong.

Email them? It will probably be more useful than posting in a forum that has nothing to do with Cal Air imo...

This is why you never use the betas if you want your planes to work... Run the updater again, this time going back to the current version (not a release candidate). That should fix the problem.

The number two engine was definitely not running just as the plane yawed to the right. In some of the videos you can see the number one is full open, while the number two is closed up. The rudders are also jammed full left in the high alpha pass, which is another indicator that the number two failed just into the high alpha pass. Also, if you notice on impact, the number one engine begins to shoot flames as the debris from the forward parts of the aircraft begin to be ingested, the number two does not.

Hey no problem. Sometimes it's nice to have autopilot, especially when your flying a fairly long flight and the winds keep changing... Theres an autopilot gauge in the default instruments within plane maker that would work well, it's called the S-TEC_55. But, what ever is easiest for you.

Just wondering if eventually you would look into adding a simple autopilot into the stack on the panel? Some aircraft will have this installed, but from what I can see this is mostly a VFR plane. Also, on the heading indicator, there is no heading adjustment knob, or a heading bug (or movable reference point). Is this some sort of error, or is this on purpose?

That is one of the biggest draws of X-Plane for the "other" platforms. X-Plane, has, and always will be a multi-platform sim. When I first got into flight sims, I was looking for something that I could run on a Mac (and that gets rid of MSFS, which in my opinion looks horrible, but I digress) and the only sim at that point which would run on a Mac was X-Plane. But, X-Plane also runs on Windows, and Linux. Which means that it is covering the entire computer market, an extremely smart move by Austin. If your going to make a transition from making products for MSFS, you need to remember that the founding portion of the X-Plane following and community in general is, and always will be, Mac. I can understand that most of the ex-MSFS developers are coming from the Windows world, but they must remember not to alienate the Mac users. My favourite example of a guy who made everyone happy is Greg Hofer, of Classic Jet Simulation. CJS built an absolutely amazing CF-104, but the original release was Windows only. The Mac community asked him to make a Mac version, and Greg went out of his way to make a Mac version, even buying a new iMac so that it would get done fast! Anyhow, I hope that the team from Real Environment understands that the Mac community once was the majority of users in the X-Plane world, and that we deserve to have the same add ons that everyone else gets. Also, I've read about how this product was hyped before it's release as bringing in a "New Era in Flight Simulation." From what I've heard on another forum from many users is that, all that this fairly expensive program is doing is replacing the cloud and sky textures. If this is all that REX is doing how can the developer justify the price, when there have been many different cloud and sky texture replacement packages?

I normally do a batch conversion after doing an X-Plane upgrade. I upgraded from my previous X-Plane version to, the at that time, 9.45 final. Somewhere I read about doing batch conversions after updates to ensure compatibility and what not... Edit: Turns out that the file I had on my external drive was either post batch conversion, or it was somehow messed up too... I sent a message on the contact page to X-Aviation, we shall see what happens.