Cameron

Yes, X-Plane is capable of this with Normal Maps as of X-Plane 9.4.

Hi, Simon, The Orbx line of products are nice, however, they are in a different line of product. Their products are similar to that of what FS World is (landclass), with added imagery, objects, revised default textures, and a revised autogen system. As it stands right now, X-Plane is not as capable to do this with ease given the current tools. This will improve over time (I have discussed ideas with Laminar), but for now autogen isn't exactly easily customisable. As such, to produce any kind of a package like you speak of would require hand done object placement over an entire state. It would not run in an efficient manner, and revised default textures may appear out of place with scenery not covered by RealScenery. Yes, it would be cool. No, it's not easily done and probably won't be for some time. Thanks for sharing your ideas though!

It's possible as an added product upgrade, but definitely not as part of this package for release. The models are different in many fashions, including the systems that drive the aircraft. The -700 and -900 are much closer in cockpit systems than that of the -200. That aside, as you know, the 3D model would be quite different as well. Your analogy works well with aircraft that have the same systems. The NG series of 737s would fall into this scenario (the -400 is not an NG and the systems would be drastically different, so to even call or sell it as the same aircraft series would be a little crazy).

Turn off the runway following terrain contours in the rendering settings, restart X-Plane, and check out the scenery again.

Hi, Nova, As a developer investing time in the systems and model, our best bet for a good return of income vs time invested is to cater to the majority. As such, we go the extra mile to get a nice aircraft with good FPS, but caters to the pilots AND the people that enjoy the eye candy. To be quite honest with you, even if the back portion of the cabin and doors/signs were stripped out, I don't think our final cost would be much different. The systems, textures, 3D cockpit modeling, and documentation take a lot of time to do, and are the primary reason the addon's are so pricey. While I can't say for sure, I think this goes for LVL-D and most PMDG products on the MSFS side. Majority of their products do NOT have the 3D cabins and all that jazz inside, yet the systems modeling is their justification of cost. All that said, I respect your opinion and reasonings for reservation! Hopefully you'll find the CRJ something that deserves to be in your hangar one day.

Hi, Donald, I figured that was it. Glad it's better for you now. My experience with X-Plane is that graphic setting programs that are meant to take over the app do not do so when the app is really launched. Happy flying!

Donald, I didn't particularly mean the resolution in size. I more or less meant the settings within the resolution screen of X-Plane that Nhancer should be taking over. I'm curious to know if the AA and Anisotropic settings, etc are correlating correctly to what you have set in Nhancer.

Hi, Donald, Have you tried ensuring that the settings are the same within your resolution settings of X-Plane? This is under the Settings menu when in sim.

Joe, There's no need to tell one another what to say. You were given that response for the pure fact that you may not have seen that part of this topic, as well as others that may be wondering similar. If you're someone who has been following this thread, then the answer is: We don't have a price and won't be really thinking about it until we have all the work completed and assessed. We want to be fair and justified, and as such, the price may decrease or increase from what we would say today when compared to what actually gets put or not put into the final version.

This was discussed earlier in the thread around reply #21: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=378.msg2439#msg2439

As has been answered above, yes, a very realistic start and shut down sequence is coded in.

Thanks for the compliment! I'm sure Javier and Anton share the same sentiment. We have tried very hard to get airfoils and numbers accurate according to real world manuals, including the FCOM. At the moment we are working out fuel consumption numbers to be more in line with the real deal (so you can expect that in the end), as well as down to how much fuel the APU even takes up when running. The engines will not use plugins. Our auto thrust is controlled by plug-in, but we depend on X-Plane's engine model for quite a bit. It actually is quite accurate if you do it right. A lot of people tend to just rely on "quick numbers" and assume that that's all that's needed to get a plane to be modeled correctly in flight. As you're aware, this is not always the case. This question goes hand in hand with the answers to the previous questions. We are not just depending on geometry, but a number of real world values to give us the best simulation within reason that is possible. The systems simulation will be the "deepest" experience for X-Plane to this date. This is, of course, with the assumption we follow the path we're headed on and don't make changes that will compromise this statement. You can expect a release of more details concerning systems and failures soon, but at this time we're not fully willing to "unleash" all we have accomplished with this great aircraft. The flight instruments will be realistic and as true as possible to the real aircraft. They are all plug-in driven, so it will not be like any default aircraft you've ever seen for X-Plane. It's quite advanced, and very pretty to look at. This product shouldn't be far off (if at all) from what you would expect from Level-D or PMDG quality works.

Hi, Ola, Can't seem to see any picture here of what you're describing. Looking forward to seeing you get back into the scenery side of things!

Maxime, I don't mean to be rude here, however, you have consistently (almost daily) sent emails and asked the same in posts about release dates. Our answers have not changed. Release dates are something we will no give out due to bumps in the road we cannot predict. As such, we have no answers that are definitve when it comes to a Christmas release for any products in development. It's encouraging to see people like yourself excited for the release of our works, however, as stated here earlier, patience is going to just have to be a part of the development phase here. If we ever can be sure of a release date for a product, these forums will be the place to see that announcement, but until then the answer is the same: When it's done.

It'll come when it comes. Patience, Maxime. It's better to have a quality product than a rushed one.

Hi, Dhruv, As Javier stated above, this is something we were aware of prior to posting the video. We went ahead and shared the video in an effort to show off the lighting reflections and the work in progress to date.

I'm sure someone will do this down the line. We have a number of X-Aviation sponsored projects unannounced at this time. As development rolls along you'll hear more about other projects, but until then this is all that I can convey.

Hi, Maxime, Sorry, I don't quite understand your question. Can you re-phrase?

Donald, A communal links forum is in place here with a topic full of links already. Anyone is welcome to add to the list! http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=64.0

Hi, Crash, I think we're all open to opinions and trying to make things better. I personally like the design here. Not sure if it's your monitor, or what, but the design is grey, black, white, and a fading gradient. There is no purple here. We plan on adding more features as time goes on, but I think the design overall is much more appealing compared to some alternatives out there.

Maxime, No, we won't have it out by that time, and don't have a definitive schedule to give. It's close, but that's about all we can say without breaking promises.

I never said anywhere in my post that nobody but Apple can make a quality laptop. I said what I've purchased (mainly the laptop market) has been inferior to that of a Mac. I've got Asus, Acer, and Averatec laptops sitting right here. All three dead. Doesn't mean they're all like that, but my personal experience has not been good. I've had better results with PC desktops. I've never bought a name brand one (always built my own), but I don't think I've had any issues with them at all. I'm sure there's been plenty of HD fails on both ends of the spectrum...Mac and PC. Compared to Vista, yes, I agree. I suppose that depends on who you are. I'll buy Mac's because I have a good track record with them, along with the desktop PC's I have. What I won't due is "supersize" a Mac with ram or extra hard drives at Apple's cost. I tend to go to places like Newegg or Amazon and upgrade from there. That's where I would agree with you in the "overpriced" statement. At the end of the day, we are all here for the same reason, and that's because we like X-Plane. What operating system and brand you choose to like is a matter of your own opinion.

Howdy, Clmooring!, It's nice having you here, and welcome to the community! As Dhruv has stated, the reason you aren't seeing anything but water is because you have the Demo version of X-Plane. The only areas of actual scenery included are KSBD and the default Innsbruck that you see when you start the sim for the very first time. If you'd like to have ORF and JFK or any other places for that matter, you'll need to purchase the full retail version. It's a great sim. Fly around the available areas, see how it performs for you, and if you like what you see, you can almost guarantee it will perform just the same in the rest of the sim once purchased! Hope to see you around more often!

Matthew, I don't agree with this statement at all, and I as well as others could take offence to it. I personally own Mac's and PC's. They are both good in their own right (my primary desktop is a PC with Windows 7, while my primary laptop is a Macbook Pro). I didn't by the Mac for reasons that I wanted to look cool or get a brand. I bought because of prior experience with other laptops made that operate using windows, and seem to be prone to die at a quick rate. I have Mac's that date back to the early 1990's that still work flawlessly to date (not that they're of any use). I can't say the same for my PC laptops, as their build quality is inferior to that of any Mac's I have purchased. When you buy a Mac, you're buying QUALITY. Call it a brand if you want, call it cool if you think that's what it is, but it's certainly not my reasoning for shelling out additional dough. It's definitely not a statement to say "Hey, look, I own an Apple product, you must be poor!" After all, most Mac's these days are becoming increasingly competitive with their price vs. other laptops out there. I do like Windows 7. It's much less bloated than Vista was. I do not believe that it's better than Mac OS X, but just as with any operating system out there, Mac OS X is not flawless either. These days I've grown more into liking Ubuntu Linux, simply because it's light weight, fast, and is good in an environment for productivity. All that said, I do commend Microsoft for their efforts on Windows 7. It is a nice step forward.

Also remember that Windows can natively run on Mac's now as well.