Cameron

I don't think you're understanding what I said. 3D viewing online vs. demos are really two different things as well. Yes, we do have serial systems, but with that comes further risk for any hacker. They have to first purchase the goods they are after to have a "crack" at it. They would also be subjecting themselves to be known. A demo of any limited measure due to plug-in programming can be hacked if one knew what they were doing or tried hard enough without any fall back or risk on their part. We've also looked at the 3D viewers in the past just as a "cool" feature, but this is also what screenshots are for. I think most people are looking for performance testing when it comes to demos. A 3D viewer cannot accomplish this. In any case (at least from our side), the answer to your proposition is "not now."

Sounds like you might have a plug-in in your resources/plug-ins folder that shouldn't be there (should be in an aircraft folder) and it's incorrectly drawing fuel. That's my first guess.

Not possible...unless you do some kind of a remote connection to your computer through your iPad, but I can't imagine it would be crazy efficient.

Grow up, boys. Take it to PM. Topic closed.

My hand is dipped in many of the projects distributed on X-Aviation (which I own). That is "us." In this instance, it's RealScenery and I. There's a reason both of our logos are on the intro of the video you questioned. Automobile animation is present.

It was a decision made by us for what we felt looked better when flying over the scenery. We extend this out relatively far to the west for consistency. Depending on the area, we made cuts in the scenery for X-Plane's water to show where we felt it should (be it bay, lakes, or rivers). If it looked better as imagery it remained. If it looked better as a cut with X-Plane's water it was changed for that. There is no intention to change this for final release. As one would expect, imagery degrades at lower levels. 50ft is too low to appreciate the scenery. Pattern altitudes, however, are quite good. It's like going into Google Earth as far as you can and then some. Eventually you'll get pixelation if you zoom in too far (though not as ugly in X-Plane by any degree).

So long as you can export a model from Caedium to any of the following programs you can get your model into X-Plane: 1. AC3D 2. Blender 3. 3D Studio Max (payware exporter required) 4. Sketchup (limited...better for scenery since datarefs cannot be assigned here) These are the only supported modelers for the X-Plane object format spec to export from. The datarefs are assigned in the 3D application prior to export, with the animation keyframes attached to the datarefs. Keep in mind that X-Plane will ONLY determine flight model data based on the acf file and its geometry, NOT the 3D application geometry you build. In other words, you have to build the same aircraft twice - once in Plane-Maker, and once for visual effect in 3D software (if you care about visuals). If you're purely after the flight model design you must use Plane-Maker for 3D/flight dynamics. Caedium, AC3D, Blender, etc will not help you out.

Hey, thanks for the wonderful comments! Tons of credit goes to Goran and Theo at Leading Edge Simulations! Hope to see you around for lots of great discussion, and thanks for checking out X-Aviation too!

Happy to have you here, Bobback.

It's right there in his signature...

That doesn't achieve the desired result.

Tough call. You also open yourself up (as a distributor and developer) to people trying to crack and pirate your product doing this without any chance or really figuring the culprit. Sad, but true. We've gone back and forth on this internally for a long time. Maybe one day it will happen, but not now.

Why is that an issue? This is what the Jetstream 32 is known as. In 1985, a further engine upgrade was planned, which flew in 1988 as the Jetstream Super 31, also known as the Jetstream 32.

With the e-mail provided in your X-Pilot account I am unable to cross-reference a valid account for you from X-Aviation. If you have purchased this elsewhere, please utilize their support channel.

Should be fine.

I watched the video. He did not say what you stated he did. What he did say: 1. OpenStreetMap was utilized to produce the roads and they are not custom, but auto generated based on the roads that people have contributed into the OSM database (almost all). This is a true statement, and Austin left little for interpretation here. He even went to the extent to state that meant overpasses, etc...not buildings. Since the roads are accurately placed in the sim and you can see them all if you pump up your roads settings, I believe the entirety of Austin's claims to be true. 2. He stated that the X-Plane world is plausibly 3D. He further clarified this by saying that the clouds, the aircraft, the buildings, the cars, and whatever else were not superimposed or billboarded to a 2D image, be it flat or vertical. They are truly 3D objects. This statement is also true.

The product works fine in X-Plane 10, just as all RealScenery products do. Washington is part of our legacy line of products, as are any other packages without the 'Enhanced' title in them ( Enhanced is Oahu, Reno, and soon NORCAL). Legacy just means that these packages were built prior to the new methods used in our Enhanced scenery, some of which includes even higher resolution imagery, a special car following imagery roads feature, and night lit tiles. We also employ a strict color correction on our Enhanced series. From a personal standpoint, I still much prefer the RealScenery packs to default X-Plane (even if Legacy). You may find that Washington and other similar packs are well suited for flying 5,000 ft and above, where as the HR and Enhanced titles are well suited for both low and high flying. If you prefer to fly low and slow I suggest: Oahu, Reno, Phoenix, or Tucson, with Oahu and Reno being the better of the two. If you like doing planned routes at higher than GA pattern altitudes then all will cover. Hope this helps!

Microsoft/ACES spent considerable time with a team to develop bigger cities with some accurately placed CUSTOM scenery, not autogen. This would be why you would see more accurate depiction of such elements. This comes down to time, size of team, and money, all of which Microsoft has (had) a ton more of. That said, X-Plane 10 is a complete re-write (or near it) of the scenery engine compared to version 9, and is leaps and bounds better. As time moves forward I think it would be safe to assume the scenery engine will make great forward improvements as well. Until X-Plane 10, Laminar's focus has never really been eye candy. It's always been about flight dynamics, but Laminar is now starting to cater to both sides with the latest changes. For someone coming from X-Plane 9 it's a massive improvement eye candy wise, for someone coming from MSFS it is a different story. I don't understand this question. You are asking about FS X? Perhaps that was a typo? Either way, both sims are not repetitive and there are technically no "boundaries". For X-Plane there are tiles that just fit together like square pieces in a puzzle. Each piece is intended and unique for its section of the world. You don't even know you reach the seam/boundary in X-Plane (or FS X for that matter). I don't believe Austin made such a statement. The way the system works is it takes the power lines, railroad, roads, etc. data and fills in autogen in between it to the best it *thinks* it should plausibly do. Nothing is perfect here, but it's also not horrible. You would need to pump up your street settings to see them all. Be aware that doing so does and will have an impact on your frame rates. This is why the default setting does not set it to show ALL streets in the scenery even though they are there. There's not much to read up on here. Open X-Plane and the Rendering Settings menu and enable HDR! I actually don't think you fully understand still. For the most part, all scenery locations are pretty well consistent so long as you turn up the rendering settings. It is not exclusive to Seattle.

100% sure. We are the distributor of it.

All the info you need to know is here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/735-information-on-the-norcal-release/

There's a reason it's called work in progress.

It's been this way for years and is not such a big problem. We'll consider it, but I don't see a need for any mass announcement. It's well enough known throughout the community to be told (just as you figured out). As this topic has been answered, we'll close this now.

This has been a long known problem for many aircraft, not just the CRJ. Sometimes this happens with light settings as well. As far as I am aware, we have no intention of changing anything, so not sure where you read that. It is not a CRJ bug. This is an X-Plane setting that is saved by the sim itself based on your last selection IAS/Mach.

You will receive an email just as has always been when it is released. This will be after 10.2 goes final. Since this has been answered we'll close the topic.

Sorry, Tom, meant it more as a clarification. It's easy to get lost in all that has been going on with the updates behind the scenes! Hope all the info Tom has provided you is helpful in making your decision, ksgy!