eaglewing7

Send in a bug report, or because your on the development team, send Austin an email. Sorry but I can't help you confirm the problem, I'm using version 9.67 and loving my new computer with 80-100+ fps...

No question about it, the lighting looks excellent. My reference to radium was purely because I've always loved the way the old steam gauges were luminescent, or lit by small dome lights.

Gotta love the old lighting systems. You guys happen to be dabbling in radium paints? That stuff was widely used to make luminescent dials and markings on instruments. I actually have three different compasses from World War Two, all of which are supposed to contain radium based markings. Of course the radium is no longer luminescent, but it is said to still be somewhat radioactive...

Who do you think is making that DHC-6-300/400 that was previewed many months ago...

Thanks for the reply. What I meant by significant differences, was that there are some pretty significant differences between the DHC-1A, and the DHC-1B-2. I'll post a few screen captures of the .pdf manual so you can see what I mean. Also, I didn't mean to say that there are any inaccuracies in the model you are making, besides that I haven't actually been able to find any other POH's for the Chipmunk, at least free ones... Edit: I'll try re-uploading the files later...

Just noticed there is a new picture of the Chipmunk wearing that beautiful RCAF yellow training scheme. I then remembered that I have a pdf copy of a DHC-1B-2 POH, and I started taking a look at it and noticed that there are some significant differences in the panel and other details of the Chipmunk you are making versus the POH model. I'm just wondering, which model of the Chipmunk are you modelling your model after? Would you be in any way interested in getting a copy of the POH I have as reference material?

It might be worth trying to get in contact with Laminar Research, and seeing if they have a solution. They might decide to just send a new disc, or they may have a way around the issue.

Are you using the installer that is on Disc 1? You shouldn't be because of some error or something that Laminar made... News on that problem here: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=55309

Nope, that's not a Beaver, but as far as I can tell it is also not a real plane... If anything it looks more like a Max Holste Broussard, but even that is not right because of the singe vertical stabilizer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Holste_Broussard

I understand completely, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to get the upgrade. The only reason I was asking is because very few if any DC-3's are still flying with that panel configuration. Most are flying with something along the lines of this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytrain/1926582/L/&sid=2044c95b994cfd75e2f8d701afb90c04 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytrain/2009678/L/&sid=2044c95b994cfd75e2f8d701afb90c04 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytrain/1692907/L/&sid=2044c95b994cfd75e2f8d701afb90c04

Mighty fine looking Douglas you've got there. Any chance of a some what beat up looking panel, or a more... dare I say modernized? By modernized I simply mean the look of a DC-3 that is flying today, with more modern gauges... Of course, only if you've got time.

Guess it's about time to start requesting liveries eh? No pressure or anything but I decided I'd put up a few links of nice DHC-2's. Here is SeaAir's C-GOBC, both in her current and former liveries: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Seair-Seaplanes/De-Havilland-Canada/1953760/L/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Seair-Seaplanes/De-Havilland-Canada/1575210/L/&sid=fd6adc1145f2d2a025a558d6c8173b51 Here is Pacific Coastal Airways' Mk.1 C-FMAZ: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/De-Havilland-Canada/1939050/L/&sid=1d88c9bc600df3f0ffab9f294c043991 Pacific Coastal's C-FDSG: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/De-Havilland-Canada/1467260/L/&sid=d266f6155f75d9bdb664617d17d54973 Another PASCO Mk.1 C-FUVQ: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Coastal-Airlines/De-Havilland-Canada/1799522/L/&sid=c849e2eb595780396ca787c5c057fb8d Now a privately owned Beaver with a fitting registration: http://www.airliners.net/photo/De-Havilland-Canada/1873772/L/ Another privately owned Beaver C-FFHC, supposedly one of the oldest still flying: http://www.airliners.net/photo/De-Havilland-Canada/1602791/L/&sid=d9bfe925ae5ed7baa8043261b833200d

Interesting... I've heard a few different stories as to why the FAA stopped the mandatory spin training, but I was wondering if anyone can actually provide me with the reason behind that requirement being dropped. Thanks for the footage as well, it was quite awesome.

Like a kid in a candy shop, just gotta have fun. So tell me this, in the US, spin training is no longer a required part of the PPL training, correct? If this is true, would this mean that you have to get some sort of separate training when it comes to spins, like this, or an aerobatic rating? The reason I ask is because, here in Canada, as part of our PPL training, we have a requirement to be able to recover from a spin. We also have a separate aerobatic rating, which deals with the high performance aspect of flying.

Sold, where can I buy one lol... The last time I was at YVR, I walked down to the float area, and watched a Sea Air Beaver do a full start up and takeoff, which was awesome, especially the supersonic whine of that three blade prop.

I tend to agree. The sounds quality on the Bose is on par with any other headset I've used. I've rented ASA's and David Clark's from my flight school, and they are all the same when it comes to sound quality. Besides, what do you need stereo quality for, when the majority of the time your listening to a mono feed anyway? The ASA I got has a selector for mono or stereo, and the only reason that there is even an option is because people have started jacking their iPod's through the intercom system so they can listen to music while on longer trips... The other thing I hated about the Bose was the way the headband ratchets itself onto your skull, it is just way too tight for my liking. I will admit that the noise cancellation is an interesting feature, but I prefer to be able to hear outside noises, especially the engine because it gives me non-visual cues as to the status of various phases of flight.

This October I purchased my first headset for my PPL training, and I got myself an ASA headset. Sure it is the cheapest, but to be honest I can buy ten of them for each Bose, so the value is there. Besides that, my instructor let me try out his Bose headset, and I found the ASA to be much more comfortable, which he can also attest to as his backup headset is also an ASA... Edit: In the future I might buy a David Clark, but so far I have no complaints about the ASA, regardless of what the different aviation store salesmen will try and tell you, buy a Sennheiser its worth the $1100 lol...

To be quite honest I couldn't care less about Flight. Just me, but I can't even bother paying for a windoze licence then have to partition a drive, etc, just to run something that will not live up to the hype that surrounds it. Besides, the way Microsoft has been selling this is not as a sim, but as some sort of mission oriented, glorified X-Box game, with a totally ad hoc free flight mode. So much for a serious sim...

You do realize that this is still a public beta of X-Plane? You've certainly got high expectations for something that is still a beta, wait until an actual release, and then you can make up your mind. We've all experienced the weirdness of Austin's release schedule, performance changes, etc, it does and will get better. Also, X-Plane can only use four gigabytes of RAM because it is a 32 bit program, but I know extra RAM is nice for other programs. Also, an SSD will not affect performance in anyway. As a matter of fact all it will do is improve the start up load time, and possibly help a bit with intermittent loads, but your only going to get maybe two frames per second from it... The main issue is that people keep trying to set up X-Plane 10 as if it was version 9, we've been told numerous times that this is a different animal, and it will tax your system much more than 9...

Alright, you guys ought to read the rules handed down by Microsoft regarding the use of the beta. There is a rather serious non-disclosure agreement laid out, and there could be serious consequences to breaking any of the rules... Actually I find it interesting that they are asking for public support and feedback but they are really strangling any information about it. Seems like a bad PR move, but that is there problem.

All great minds are a bit eccentric eh?

I love how the guys from A2A could definitively say that X-Plane is not what they are looking for from a 10 minute demo... I also love how guys say PDMG, et el, are able to easily work within the framework of FSX to create "realistic" systems, flight dynamics, procedures, etc, when PDMG and others openly admit to hacking the FSX code just so they can get it to do what they want it to... Of course there is A2A saying default FSX is more useful than X-Plane, but look at what A2A uses, Accusim. What is that? Well it is an external program that modifies the code and behaviour of FSX to make it do what they want it to... So much for default FSX and it's amazing systems and performance modelling when no one actually uses it!

You've got a decent enough Macbook Pro, but the problem as usual is the video card, with only 256mb VRAM... As long as it isn't the old Macbook 256mb shared VRAM, yikes that was painful to fly with, and I was only using Version 8...

We want to hear FSX users saying guymp is unable to program? This is pathetic, as usual taking a shot at someone who probably isn't even a forum user there... As far as I can tell the Comet will be damned realistic, but of course it won't have all the modern gizmos these PDMG morons are used to so they call it crap. It's called the 1950's, when vacuum tubes were king and LCD screens were a pipe dream.

Try getting rid of the high res planet textures from orbit, and changing the objects to something lower than default.