Cameron

Not a problem, azpdec! Come around for any questions you may have and I'm sure we'd all be more than willing to get you rolling in the XP world!

Hi, Mike, The issue you saw was likely due to a conversion, as most FS2XPlane photo sceneries are made with .pol files. This take a toll on your system, whereas, RealScenery products perform similar to that of default scenery and the texture paging system. In short, between the two packages, you shouldn't see a real noticeable difference.

As has been said here, regardless of what Saitek says, the yoke and pedals DO work on the Mac.

azpdec, This all depends on your financial situation as well. If you are looking to purchase some high quality, true-to-life feeling stuff, it's out there, but runs about $500 or so per yoke and pedal. If you're looking for something that works pretty well, then I'd suggest the Saitek yoke found here: http://www.amazon.com/Saitek-Flight-Three-Lever-Throttle-PZ44/dp/B000TCD1UK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258089514&sr=8-1 A lot of people may also recommend the CH Products stuff, however, yoke wise, I would suggest the one above. For pedals, I would recommend the CH Products line here: http://www.amazon.com/CH-Products-Pedals-Simulator-300-111/dp/B0000512IE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258089578&sr=1-2 Hope this somewhat helps! Welcome to the world of X-Plane. You've made a good choice!

This topic has been moved to General Discussion. [iurl]http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=405.0[/iurl]

Nils, Quite true. I think what Tom's really trying to convey here is two things: 1. It shouldn't be called "best of," but "peoples choice" or something similar to that nature. 2. That as a person from MSFS coming to X-Plane for a first glance only to see something like that labeled as "best of" for X-Plane implies that it really IS the best it gets for X-Plane. The above second point should not be misconstrued to suggest that all of us don't appreciate others hard, free, and hobby-like work, but that the perception the actual vote title gives to the outsider can leave a lot to be desired and ultimately give a bad outlook on X-Plane itself in the sense that the aircraft voted "best" is certainly NOT the best potential that X-Plane has the ability to show or can is achievable. As it is, there are already plenty of MSFS users who have an automatic "ew" factor towards X-Plane for their own reasoning or another. Though this thread is more of a sarcastic message, it still has a comedic value to it. Worth a laugh and jab at least!

But nothing from x-aviation concerning the SeaMax yet. Are those update notifications already out or will that take some more time? Just curious. They will be coming out shortly. We are re-scripting the update process scripts for a few minor issues. You should see this very soon!

Maxime, Read post #22. http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=359.msg2539#msg2539

We have an announcement about a slight re-structure of how we will be releasing liveries. I'll come back and announce that here in the next day or so. Until then, please continue to vote on your favorite liveries for release!

Hi, Mike, It's definitely been looked into. When, if, and how it gets put in is a whole other question.

Unfortunately, we can not do this. It's not fair to everyone else, and if we can do it for one, we need to be able to do it for all.

Jason, All Air Canada Jazz aircraft are 2x2 CRJ's, and any ERJ-145's are always 2x1...same with the EMB-120's. Not sure what aircraft you're confusing with, but Jazz certainly doesn't have any 3x1's.

Jason, Of the documentation I have, all docs state that the CRJ was only configured in 2x2 configuration. A 3x1 configuration in a CRJ would make it very hard to walk through, so I'd be curious to know what airline you speak of, and if you're getting the CRJ mixed up with another aircraft. So, if you don't mind, please share this information to verify.

Hi, Mike, We are waiting on a new special "feature" we haven't announced yet to be completed and then we'll have more info for everyone then.

Because it's not that simple, Jason. This is not your standard, regular acf model that you can just go into PlaneMaker with. If you want to read up and understand why, please see the following post (#10): http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=371.msg2370#msg2370 as well as further discussion here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=390.0 One day this aircraft will have an integrated ADF. For now, we thought we would be nice to people who love the aircraft but have no means of ADF and release a plug-in like the above here. The other alternative was to make everyone wait months until we have the re-do finished. Would you have preferred that instead?

It would be pointless to simulate an aircraft like we are and not simulate one of the most essential components of it (FMS). So, to answer your questions, yes, I can assure you that the FMS will do most everything the real one does. This also means we have a different FMS than X-Plane uses, and it is functional and NOT for looks. As long as you're willing to read a manual or understand the CRJ systems already, you should have no issues programming in routes.

The FMS will be that like you see for the real CRJ. It is NOT a universal FMC, but one specifically designed after the real CRJ-200's in the skies today.

$40 is hardly steep for a product that fully simulates an aircraft in almost its entirety. Not even the FMS is X-Plane technology, but custom plug-in, as well as the autopilot system and all displays. The aircraft cannot be started just by jumping in the cockpit and going, but by reading the manual and checklists and doing it just like the real thing. It is, in itself, a simulator within a sim! PMDG makes products that are $79+. Go figure there, right? Somehow, they are still about the most popular around for MSFS. I do believe that costs need to be justified, and I DO believe there is a threshold for costs of products ($79 is certainly pushing it quite a bit), but when you consider the man hours invested to do this stuff, it's insignificant. You'll get hours of enjoyment at your own disposal for the cost of a nice dinner at Olive Garden for two. Of course, if you can't manage that cost at this time it's understandable given the state of economies, but maybe it'll be something to gift yourself or save up for down the line should you want it that bad and are serious enough about how much you want to simulate in your X-Plane flights. The choice is yours...that's the beauty of it all!

Jason, The texture is only a minimal portion of a moving window. Textures are not hooked to datarefs, objects are. This translates to more polygons per window, which ends up being wasted space for non-essential items.

These probably will not be implemented simply because they are a waste of polygons, which in turn can affect frame rates.

Tom, You can expect the quality of this package and manuals to be that of the MU-2 documentation.

Mike, Those shots weren't posted simply because I did a VATSIM flight with the intention of not doing low-city fly by's. I'm sure we'll get some low altitude shots up here sometime, and our bay area imagery as it stands is pretty hi-res. We WILL have add-on hi-res packages available for those that wish to take it a step further the same day, or right around, release day. They will be in the similar fashion of the Arizona HR series seen here: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=48 and here: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=47 SOCAL will see the light of day...soon. Thanks for your interest!

Some more previews of Norcal can be seen in the following topic: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=392.0

Hi, all, here are some shots of a flight I did from San Francisco-Denver. The scenery is the soon to be release Northern California (Objects are FlyTampa SFO conversion) scenery by RealScenery, and the aircraft is the still in development XP Jets 777. Enjoy!

That's precisely what I said, Jason. CTRL+(plus/and) .