Cameron

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!

While Gizmo 12 has been in development many ideas have been entertained and sharing will definitely reach the masses in a much better way than was previously offered or shown. We won't be entirely shunning the org, and projects can be shared there. I'm sure Ben will have more on this as time rolls on with announcements and finalization of the Gizmo 12 plug-in. It's leaps and bounds better than we've ever had before!

IXEG uses Gizmo, not SASL. Gizmo is very powerful and can do anything (so for that I have seen) that you can do in C, and very efficiently. In all honesty, the 737 is the most advanced aircraft for X-Plane in production to date, and given it's LUA driven that in itself is all you need as a testament. Because of the JIT (Just In Time) compiler used in Gizmo the performance "hit" is practically negligible in comparison to C...you honestly wouldn't notice it in my experience. Any calculation or desire you have can be done with Gizmo so long as it's within the realm of the X-Plane SDK and you know your syntax. And, as you've mentioned, it's very fast to develop in. SASL does well from what I have witnessed, but has limitations against it that Gizmo does not. The major reason for this is due to the way the plug-ins were architected. At this time SASL works well in some areas, but lacks in many others. It works for those who use it within its limitations, and may do the same for you. I don't want to make this a Gizmo vs SASL war, so I'll leave it at that. Yes, LUA can handle your math.

To a degree, correct. I don't discount it THAT much because I actually think it is quite good at what it does knowing what it was intended to do, but I won't sugar coat! Roads, etc are accurate. Buildings are not. More info is in the other topic we have been discussing in. You can, of course, enhance your scenery with add-ons: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/xplane-scenery-c-24.html

X-Plane is relatively good in its resolution of mesh, but not quite the good you and I would like. Long story short, the way mesh is created in X-Plane it would be cost and space prohibitive to ship hi-res mesh. It would also likely not perform very well. So I have had a look at the video you speak of. Everything in there is without a doubt default and what ships with X-Plane. Most of the video is taken around the KSEA region. X-Plane scenery is only as good as the data it is built with. The streets, mesh, etc come from free sources. The mesh has an algorithm which determines the best plausible texture set to apply to a region given the topology. Sometimes this is accurate, sometimes it's not. For Austin, plausible means just that, but not LITERAL...not exact. If I told you about a city you had never been to and you try to imagine it in your head, that's essentially what Austin would mean. You know what cars look like, you know what buildings look like. X-Plane does NOT accurately place autogen buildings (hence the reason you see no landmark buildings or wharf), but it does accurately place roads, power lines, railroads, etc. That said, this data comes from OpenStreetMap, and if not all roads are in there then so too will the roads not be there in X-Plane. Laminar is also aware of some problem areas in the default scenery and, as far as I am aware, does have plans to re-cut some scenery to look better. Perhaps I don't understand you on this one. In my experience, Laminar has done quite well on the airport lighting. It's important to remember that unless you are at just the right angle (even in real life) you will not see airport lights. Usually it is just a black patch in a city. That said, to really get the best experience that one sees in the videos from Laminar, you need to enable HDR mode at night. Everything I have mentioned above. From Austin's video I believe he has pretty much delivered on what he stated would be there. Cars, tail lights, night lights, etc...it's all there. HDR is key in this though! These objects use "real lights" and are really only rendered in HDR mode. Without it on...say hello to darkness.

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/4554-in-progress-a-few-103-questionsissues/

No.

The Jetstream 32, Mentor, SeaMax, Blackshape Prime, Cessna 152, Duchess, and Sundowner at X-Aviation. Soon the CRJ. I believe on the org, the CRJ and 727. Not sure if there are others. Anything non-plugin related of course, so I'm sure there are.

This would be the .acf files. In X-Plane, the geometry in most cases defines the actual flight model, unlike MSFS which uses tables. That said, you would use the Plane Maker program located in your X-Plane directory to open an aircraft and edit the parameters for it. I believe the promo video used some add-on aircraft, but don't recall on scenery. It certainly can look as is seen so long as your specs are bumped up! It's also important that you keep updated with X-Plane updates. It's come a very long way since version 10.0.0.

Hi, there, Thanks for sharing your story and telling it in a mature manner. I respect it very much. ...and welcome to X-Pilot! Yes, we are a lot different here. You won't have a hammer come down on you for sharing your opinion. X-Plane has its weaknesses and strengths. The nice thing is having Laminar continuously develop to make it better in the end. That doesn't take away from what we have right now. I think most of this behavior comes from the fact that people are behind a computer screen...it's almost a cloak. Bets have it that in person a majority of these people would never even consider treating people in the same manner (in fact, I'm willing to bet many would appear shy). This aside, I also think this weird divide has been created between FS X and X-Plane so much so that some take their stance very passionately (similar to Apple vs PC). In the end, we all love flight simming and should keep that core concept in mind. I've seen good and bad on both sides and take it for what it is. Enjoy the community here. It's a great place to hangout!

Ask them.

Not without the source code.