eaglewing7

I think you got all of the odd ball / non-original parts. Although you did miss the transponder, and what ever the heck that "Kenwood" thing is mounted under the Bendix/King radios. It does also have the other style of dash mounted flap indicator, but I noticed that there are no markings on it (it might be a bit hard to see in the main cockpit shot because of the size of the photo).

Sure did. He's had it hangared for a while now, due to insurance costs, and not having the cash on hand to make some repairs... So the pictures I did take were all of the cockpit, because the rear seats had all been removed, and two or maybe three of them or just parts of them were laying on the floor... And as for saying it is totally original, well thats a bit of a lie, because some parts are, but others are not. See if you can spot the non-original parts...

Nah, a pinch of Mercurochrome will fix that right up. Wasn't that part of a Buddy Hacket routine, something about a self-circumcision kit... All it is, is a household fan with no guard on it. Just a little brrrrr... And whoa there you go. A pinch of Mercurochrome and your good to go.

Sounds good, and I'm sure there will be plenty of liveries made up for the Beaver in due course. Actually I was surprised at how original the interior of this Beaver was. All of the original gauges are in place (you can tell by the faded and yellowing paint), and even the original data plates are installed in the cockpit.

Thanks, problem is, the school can't rent the C-172 on floats to low time students because of the insurance costs... It apparently costs around $14,000 a year to insure the 172 on floats, with only the front seats as a training only aircraft, so they will only rent it to people who have at least 25 hours PIC and dual in it... Although I know an instructor who has a friend who owns a PZL Wilga on floats, so that may be an option some time down the road.

Just finished getting my float rating today, a whopping seven hours in two days, and more touch and go's, splash and go's, and stop and go's than I can count... The school's owner actually owns a Beaver, serial number 12, CF-FHC, and I was wondering if you would be able to make a livery modelled after it? Here's a few pictures of her in the hangar where she's been resting recently.

I think what your unhappy with is using a 3D cockpit, on a 2D projection monitor. It isn't a perfect setup by any means, but it certainly gives you an immersion factor that you can't get with a flat 2D panel IMHO... If you want a more accurate feel, try using Track IR, or something that lets you scroll through the pit more freely and more realistically in the sense that it would feel more natural. Either that or start building sim pits, but that can get pricey...

One of these days I'll have to fly in there, of course going from CZBB to CAK3 is kind of a waste of gas LOL... It looks like a nice strip from the air though, unlike King George airpark which just looks like a dump.

Actually, I have a feeling that you are using the same iMac I used to own. Is it an approximately four year old iMac, thick screen, 24 inch? If it is the 3.06 GHz chip set, you'll either have a 256 mb ATI GPU, or a 512 mb NVIDIA GPU (I feel sorry for people with the Ge Force 8800 GS, piece of junk quit on me three times)...

Output > Preferences Delete everything in the file. You will loose all of your settings, including joystick buttons, etc...

Delete all of your preferences, or take them out and put them back in one by one until you figure out which one is the culprit. The only way the log.txt or crash log will be useful is if you have a crash and then save it and post the log, because if you restart X-Plane it wipes out the log and starts again.

From the pictures this looks amazing, of course not having XP-10 yet I can't test it out. What are the odds that this might work in Version 9? Or have the file systems changed dramatically since the new version came out?

Never noticed that LOL... I certainly am slighting noble trade by calling it hackery... It would be nice of course if we could get around having to use said hackery, if certain well used features were just hardcoded into the sim.

Haha, drop tanks, sure... All in all external fuel tanks, or drop tanks, are an integral part of the sim, especially when it comes to fighter aircraft, both modern and historical. It would be nice if there was a simple way to model them realistically without having to resort to plugin hackery...

I'm not 100% sure where to post this on this forum, but here goes, if it is in the wrong place, or there is a more appropriate location, please feel free to move it... In X-Plane the drop tanks that can be placed on an aircraft model have a few simple settings, such as the size, etc, and they "work" to a degree. In X-Plane 9.70 these drop tanks, can be placed on an aircraft, and then the aircraft will only burn fuel from these tanks. In my experience, the tanks are pretty much a joke, as they never seem to run out of fuel. To me it seems like they are a stop gap solution, and there is a need to change the way that the sim deals with these external fuel tanks. I would love it if the sim would actually allow you to fill the tanks like any other fuel tank, which is currently only possible on one aircraft that I know of (Classic Jet Sims CF-104, and it is plugin driven). Also, it would be great if these tanks, not only could be filled to a variable capacity, up to a set maximum capacity, but also be selected variably, unlike the current setup, where they are the default feed tank until they are dropped from the aircraft. I would like to know if anything has changed in version 10 as to the way that external tanks have been modelled? Secondly, would anyone actually agree that having a default and easily modifiable method of adding and using external fuel tanks would be a good idea? In the end, I know that if Austin decided to change anything with regards to drop tanks it would probably only be updated in Version 10.XX, so version 9 will probably be left out of any changes. Your thoughts...

I love the idea of ultra realistic 3D cockpits, super realistic handling characteristics (in all phases and realms of flight), and realistic ATC like VATSIM, but there is one missing element in all of this. Good scenery can't fill in the gap, it can help, but here is what we are missing. This will be very difficult to simulate, but the feeling of flight, the movement. Lets face it, when your actually at the controls, there is a large element of feel to everything you do. Of course that is very difficult to simulate without some sort of full motion system, but if enough of a realistic illusion could be created, it would be nice.

It might be that what the scenery author did was place an airport beacon on top of a lighthouse to simulate it, but now X-Plane 10 only wants beacons to be located near airports? Try going into the airport data file with a text editor and removing the beacon as it says, or post the file here and see if someone can figure out the problem. Edit: Is this an error that causes a CTD, or can you fly once you click on "understood"?

I can't wait to see what Will makes first when the paint kit comes out... As for the C1 Sperry, its time to hit the books again, because that thing is a monster all its own.

Bloody beautiful! I have to ask have you considered what liveries will be released initially, obviously Duggy, and second, which model of the Sperry autopilot are you modelling for this aircraft? I've been doing some reading on the Sperry C1, which was used in the B-25, and all I can say is that it must have been a real pain in the arse getting that working especially during combat missions...

Take your time, because in the end you are your own worst critic, and until your happy they heck with everyone else. I just realized that because you are using a plugin, or a coded system to make your radial engine realistic, you could probably use a large portion of that same code on other radial engine aircraft, if you were so inclined to make them. Again, keep up the excellent work.

Looks like a Dash 8-100 alright. That was quite an ugly crosswind, but to me it would appear that there was also some gusting, and possibly wind shear just to make things more interesting. Nice work by the pilots to get it down onto the runway, and safely as well.

I totally forgot about the Caribou and the Buffalo... Both totally needed to complete X-Plane, and make it more attractive.

Or worst of all he could get hooked on the real thing... If you thought an X-Plane addiction was pricey, you ain't seen nothing till you start flying for real lol.

You know thats not a bad idea... A lot of people, especially us FSE enthusiasts, have been waiting to get really good de Havilland Canada models so we can have fun using the Beaver, Otter, Twin Otter, Turbine Beaver, Turbine Otter... If your really ambitious a great project would be to complete the entire de Havilland Canada family. Good luck on this project, and man is she looking great. One question though, have you decided which liveries will be included as defaults, or are you still thinking about it.

Nope, that looks like JCS' F-16. One problem with showing such a large variety of aircraft is that it leads new users to believe that they are all available with the sim when you first buy it. Of course that is not true, and no where does it say anything about the extent to which pay ware aircraft are shown... I have to say though, that it is a very well made video and I rather enjoyed it.