boleyd

I will look periodically but this is one of those situations where you pay $80 but cannot use all that you pay for. To use everything you must spend Hundreds of dollars. This is not unique to X-Plane and has become a fact of PC life. Obviously my video card is not useable with this product. However, I complement X-Plane for releasing a demo that saved me $80, for now. Hopefully they continue to keep it patched so if any improvements help me I am aware of them.

My GT240 is only 530 FurMark points so I will have to look elsewhere for flight simulation.

Ah, now XPlane 10 may cost me several hundred dollars. Hmmmmm. Yes, I understand keeping current with technology but the price/benefit is a consideration. May pass until there is a bit more product maturity. Thanks....

I have played with the XP-10 Demonstration but I am disappointed in my FPS versus the elderly FSX. I have a train simulator (Trainz) that has a choice of OpenGL or DirectX. OpenGL is very poor in this instance with 1/3 the frame Rate (FPS) of DirectX. I suspect the disappointing performance I see in the demo is because of OpenGL. Are there some nVidia control panel settings I should look at? Windows7 32 bit, 4gb memory, e8400 3ghz dualcore, nVidia gt240 512mb - overclocked.

Despite some issues this aircraft is destined to join the list of classics. It is a missing link in a long chain of single engine GA aircraft developed for X-plane where its attention to detail has set the stage. Rather that just slapping a solid color here and there we actually see something that doe not resemble a model aircraft but a real one. For me the interior is extremely important visually. If it is not believable (many are not) then the delete key gets hit even if I paid for it. The quality of the airplane is actually measured in the interest expressed to make it better. There is a saying in the U.S. Navy that "a bitching crew is a happy crew". Silence means a mutiny is afoot. In X-Plane it means there is no interest in the product.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Loaded with 350lbs of human cargo. Weather clear and calm. Set RPM as shown on the panel gauge at 2200rpm. Note the read out at top left for RPM??

Just to be sure - I just tried the plane again and left the throttle at max. It climbed at 1100ft per minute at a speed of 80 knots for several minutes. Tach reads 2700 and the digital data output (on screen) agrees. I was mis-reading the tach numbers before. However, the powerful engine giving the climb rate above does seem odd. I think I saw where you said that you found something. Awaiting that fix. Thanks

I may have missed it but what is the meters/pixel resolution? Same question for HD Tuscon?

I looked at the RPM on the screen data output. The gauge read just over 100 rpm too high.

I am not taking an absolute position on the reality of the "clean" windshield. At the factory that is a "real" windshield but with some tint. 6 months of use later it may not be. However, if the owner of the aircraft was annoyed by a dirty windshield they might spend the money to replace it periodically. Some nutty people do nutty things. I prefer the clean windshield so I can see the countryside as clearly as possible. Fortunately, I did not have to spend any money for my "nutty" obsession for a clean windshield! ;D In the other direction the person who created the XP aircraft did "spend" time making the windshield dirty thus meeting his objectives of maximum reality for an aircraft that must be old and used since they have not been made for a few years. Nothing wrong with that so long as I can find an alternative.

In this file: C:\X-Plane 9\Aircraft\General Aviation\4Forces Cessna 152\objects I blocked this file by changing its file type with some zeros: Windowin.00000obj It is a very crude approach and XP will give you a minor error when loading a flight. Ignore it. I am sure there is a more elegant tactic but I prefer to use the product rather than play programmer.

Cleaned my windshield.

Level flight, 112 knots, 2900rpm, altimeter 29.8, weather calm, 38fps Should have continued that throttle at black band on the shaft of the control - cruise setting? Not sure if this is good or bad. Someone said earlier their personal 152 had similar RPM readings. However, FSX or XP planes I have seen (GA types) top out at 2500rpm.

Level flight, 112 knots, 2900rpm altimeter 29.8, weather calm, 38fps

My windshield remains dirty. If I owned a plane that would be replaced.

The climb rate at 3000rpm along with the 120knot speed seem quite high. Should the tach/engine really go this high?

Is there a way to install a new windshield without tint and abrasions?

Just a small update - the author of the product I criticized has sent me a msg acknowledging the "spartan" interior citing past comments received about highly detailed interiors killing frame rates. A true dilemma but take this as an opportunity to release a version at a few dollars more with a first class cockpit.

Having just sent a message of complaint about a terrible interior to the vendor I feel compelled to comment on my view of these sub-standard commercial products. There is no need to mention the specific vendor. My comments really applies to all. The sale of commercial aircraft with extremely substandard cockpits only furthers the belief, a wrong belief, that X-Plane is not capable of high quality aircraft. In an effort to make money, vendors are selling many different aircraft under their names with not only terrible interiors but questionable flight dynamics as well. When I asked about a recently released product I was told that I could change the flight dynamics if I wished. The respondent had no references to any real pilot testing his/her release. It became obvious that the person felt that simply making a physical shape in Plane Maker was sufficient. These products, be they free or commercial, are a detriment to X-Plane whose reputation still carries the stigma of poor quality aircraft in a high quality simulator. That will continue so long as it is justified by some of the things that are released for use in X-Plane.

The "dig for it" is important. This is especially true for a non-pilot. I am sure many non-pilots are being deceived with incorrect flight models. If they are admirers of visual models then they are ok. But, if they search for a "certified" flight model they are in trouble. Due to social sensitivities there is a strong reluctance to criticize below standard (whatever that is) aircraft. There is no way to sort them out. I never knew about Morten's aircraft until I saw his link to its discussion area. I have no idea if it is bad or good but from the extensive discussion I certainly have a good idea that it is darn good. Few aircraft seem to have this sort of discussion, and if they do it is not easily located. So once again the non-pilot customer is left with little hope of "flying" something that is very close to reality. Somewhat sad really since X-Plane is differentiated by its flight modeling tools. Less than desirable aircraft ruin that.

Perhaps if the flight controls had piston devices similar to those used to control the movement of an automobile's hatchback doors but smaller. Think of the movement and resistance of something like these devices. Perhaps another approach are the "things" that controls a DVD drawer. Here the size is taken care of but a panicky pilot might break it.

If I may chime in - as a non-pilot these are things I "thought" I had found in my limited "flying" with X-Plane. I did not want to comment since I do not drive airplanes. I fiddled the static trim params in the stock Cessna so it seems better but who knows if what I have done has made an "artificial aircraft". As I have said, if the flight models are not accurate in the basic flight regime it makes it difficult for me to suspend belief. Same goes for triangular mountains but that is another subject.

You wonder why a benign site like Asim was targeted. I would guess that they had a "reasonable" amount of security. Did they make a mistake? Were the strategies faulty? These types of breaches really makes you wonder about your own little world(PC). Lots of people are running a simple router with NAT and some other features along with perhaps a software firewall and anti-virus. Are these just paper walls easily breached and a waste of money? Flight sim people go to a variety of sites for aircraft, scenery, utilities and several other things. How do we know that one of thiose sources has not been silently hacked and our download will fire up a worm several months later? The Internet is very dangerous on many levels. So do I need to buy a $10,000 Cisco router? Or did Avsim already have one to no avail?

Looking at the photos (which are subject to lots of influences) there seems to be a just a small amount of excess blue. Also saturation may be high. People like the brilliant Technicolor initially but after awhile high saturation becomes an issue. Glad to see an Eastern state receive treatment. I love Utah in FSX but I live in PA and TN is close enough. Will eventually erase FSX since it has no evolutionary capability and I like change.

Since you will typically run this before your flight the ability to select your aircraft and airport would be nice. Also, a default flight is good for someone who focuses on one airport and one aircraft. Then another switch that might help is one that switches between your current static weather and real weather. Again, if you believe that your favorite airport is below minimums starting the program with your default weather allows a flight. I am assuming that setting switch values is not a big problem. The joystick setup is paramount and very welcome.