Kaphias

Excuse me for quoting myself, but I think this covers my reasons fairly well:

Something I want in v10? How about a 2D cockpit in every plane, instead of all the 3D cockpits we see now that are completely unrealistic?

It's not as hard as you think, I promise. Simon (I believe) has a couple great tutorial videos on youtube that really help.

The background in #2 is spot on... Mendenhall Glacier in the center and the three "towers" above it. Cool shots!

...but may not fly how the author originally intended.

If that's from that Zroman kid, it's likely an illegal MSFS conversion.

Yawn, the 3D pit discussion again. All you need to know: 2D cockpits are more realistic unless you have TrackIR and a multi-screen setup.

It's a microsoft product... It's gonna happen regardless of if your plane crashes.

Graphics card probably isn't enough to run a three screen setup, try it with just one screen and see what that does.

Both links lead to http://forums.x-pilot.com/ for me. OSX 10.6, Safari.

Year old bump. I've joined the iRacing club now, it's one hell of a workout getting the little Miata around a road course. Anyone want to share some lap times?

Try xGPS.

No, not your computer... but your screen, yoke/joystick, throttles, pedals, notebook... whatever else you may have on your desk for flight simming. Mine:

Any response to this other than "I agree" would just lead to this discussion continuing in pointless circles...

Looks like we're on the same page then, huh?

I'll give my full library a try this afternoon, but the few I have tried already worked fine.

I have no clue why, but I just can't stop laughing at this.

All part of being in the minority. Thanks for the polite reminder. What's to say that it won't look the same? No one cares, right? Fudge this a little, shrink that a little… eh whatever. If I'll only lose 1% of my potential customers by not taking the time to fix this mistake, that's ok. How far will we take it? I'm sorry for taking over this topic. I hope that I haven't killed your joy over the 747. Maybe if you go back and read my first post in this topic, you'll see how the following discussion relates.

Ahahaha. If my little rant about the 747 gives XP10 a "negative aura" in your mind, than so be it. People with that outlook on things is one reasons why we have so many problems in this world. Of course to the average joe it does, but to the real airliner aficionado it's easily noticed. Another debate for a another time… other people around the forums have already covered most of it. Haven't you noticed? I couldn't blame anyone for making this mistake… but like I said, when the mistake is mentioned, especially with the specificity and proof that this one has been, and multiple times, it just doesn't make sense for it not to be fixed.

Look under the view menu, all the functions you want should be there with the keyboard shortcuts displayed to the right. I believe the one you want is the period key, "."

And that's a sad direction to be taking, one where we get nice 3D exteriors but still have a Plane Maker 2D panel from many years ago. I understand the difficulty in programming systems simulation. But I still believe that having a 747 that flies and operates as close to the real thing as possible is more important in a flight simulator that including passenger seats and toilets. I fail to see how I'm spoiling your fun. Coming into your house and taking away your computer would be spoiling your fun. Complaining about a virtual airplane on an online message board should not be spoiling your fun. Are you saying that I can't complain unless it's the majority opinion? Yes, this is the default plane. It's the face of X-Plane as the simulator makes a huge leap forward. Being the default plane is no small task, see? Yes, I suppose the hump is a minor "fault". But you have to remember that this is the 747, arguably one of the most recognizable aircraft ever, along with the Concorde. Why is it so recognizable? Because of the hump. Besides that, it still blows my mind that we start messing up things now that we've had right for years. I do have my priorities sorted out, actually I believe I posted them on the previous page. I don't believe I ever complained about XP10, though I certainly could in its current state. As do I. Javier is obviously one of the best out there right now and I respect his work. What I don't get is why a basic 3D modeling error wasn't corrected months ago when it was first noted.

Maybe I'm winging my whining. Mostly because it concerns me that this is the direction X-Plane is taking: "Who cares about the basic shape of the plane, it's got lots of 3D buttons, passenger seats, and a lav!" Hopefully it's just growing pains and authors will learn to balance stunning 3D work with a accurate flightmodel and systems simulation.

No thanks, the XPFW 747 will do fine. Good flightmodel, nice 2D panel, easy on the framerates. Just missing system simulation, but I can hardly remember how to fly the x737 anyway with all the different a/c I fly. Too lazy to re-read the manual each time... Maybe one day I'll take a stab at straightening out "humpy" in blender.

It's not better, IMO. It doesn't have a 2D cockpit, and all the extra 3D stuff slows down the sim. Most people will disagree with me. The Plane Maker fuselage of the new 747 is, for our intents and purposes, the same as the one from V9. I agree that we probably differ on our "basics". For me, it goes something like this: Basics: -Flightmodel -2D cockpit -Systems simulation Not basics: -3D .obj This is why I'm such a fan of the x737: They got the basics downbefore they moved on to the 3D fanciness. (And the 3D work they have done so far doesn't slow my computer down, so I can ignore it) Now with that said, I can see why some would think that it's odd that I'm complaining about a 3D hump when I don't care about 3D. Two things: -This is the 747, one of the most recognizable aircraft of all time, because of the hump -Basics, pt. II: Why move on to the seats and toilets when the basic exterior shape isn't correct? Not only that, but the PM model is correct, as is the PM model from V9... and V8... and the XPFW model from V6... I just don't understand, I guess.

I think you've missed my point. I'm simply amused by the fact that, despite all the wonderful things going on elsewhere in the plane, we can't get something right that we've been doing just fine on for six years. What bugs me is that as we move forward with all the stunning 3D models, some begin to forget the basics of flight simulation (that is what XP is, right?), such as flight model, usability, and framerate. I guess I understand why people don't agree with me (ooh look at all the 3D buttons!) but that's the reason I still use XPFW aircraft from V8- they've got the basics down pat.