dpny

Absolutely.

Will there be updates for the PW/GE versions, too?

That's exactly what the betas are: we all get to be unpaid beta testers. Let me play devil's advocate. If Austin wants to have it out for the Christmas buying season, Laminar can ship on December 17th and have it in stores/homes in the US a day or three before Christmas. Is the first beta comes out on November 1st, which happens to be a Monday, that gives them six weeks of beta testing from us. Not saying that will happen, but it's doable.

Austin has said he wants it out for the Christmas shopping season, so we'll see.

It's also worth a minor note that Austin doesn't have a "16-core" beast, because no such animal exists. It's either an eight-core, or a 12-core.

Someone buy that man a return key.

Already been announced as a v10 feature.

Hasn't stopped Austin before. 9.0 through 9.2 made several big changes to aerodynamic and engine modelling, rendering some v9 and earlier planes all but unflyable in 9.2.

Keep in mind, there's what Austin says and what Austin does. A "minor" tweak to him could be a major tweak to the rest of us. Not saying that will happen but, with Austin, it's best to wait until the first betas come out to see what's happened.

Hi, Do you have a link to source? Would like to read something about that. Kind regards, Kamil http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=45408&st=30&p=509588&#entry509588

Laminar has already announced all new clouds and weather for v10.

It's an issue with fonts being embedded incorrectly in the PDF. The official Acrobat/Acrobat Reader will always be able to see the fonts, no matter what was used to create the document.

As pointed out at the .org: "Carenado is a Spanish word, so I'm assuming they mean "Compromiso" which is Spanish for "commitment."

As an aside, I wonder what the learning curve will be for those switching from lookup tables to Austin's implementation of blade theory.

Two problems intertwined: you're assuming anyone switching from MSFS to X-Plane will do so mainly for eye candy, which is treating the MSFS community as if it's homogeneous, which, of course, it isn't. People fly MSFS for all sorts of reason, and it's the same with X-Plane. Some use X-Plane to keep up on their skills, some to look at pretty, shiny things. Secondly, the focus of X-Plane will never be eye candy, because it's Austin's baby, and he's an pilot and an engineer first.

There are people for whom enjoying simulated flight is the main thing, and so other things--how much eye candy, how much anti-aliasing, etc.--are less important. And there are people for whom texture fidelity and being able to run all the eye candy at the highest level are the important things, and the simulated flying is only a way to play with shiny plane models. The second group reminds me of audiophiles: spend hours telling you that the $1,000 speaker cables they bought make the music sound better, but can't tell you what key a song is in.

Pretty sure you didn't mean it, but that came across as very condescending.

If he's only aiming for sales to a smaller group like real life Airbus pilots, then that's his decision. But it's still going to mean fewer sales than a model with a 3D cockpit could have had, I think. There are people who use TrackIR, and who simply won't buy payware that doesn't include a 3D cockpit (I'm in that category). Free head rotation means one less button I have to push to change view, or zoom in and out, and I can focus 100% on interacting with the cockpit controls. Even for people who don't use TrackIR, a 3D cockpit has become a marker for quality, like it or not. It's one of the things that separates good payware from good freeware, regardless of the model's accuracy in other respects. Just my opinion... but I don't understand the decision to release a major payware plane these days without a 3D cockpit. For the record, Peter's already stated it's by far the best selling plane he's ever made.

Not sure about this one. Peter has always been quite upfront about the situation, partially because of the explanation for the very high poly count with the model itself. The explanation from Peter that I recall is the exact same that Kesomir has posted above your post. Well, my impression was that Peter contracted with the modeler, gave him specs, supervised the project and, afterwards, made some changes. To me, that's working with. Perhaps we have different definitions.

If you're talking about actually simulating an aircraft, then it is the ultimate test. If you're talking about something else, then it has less to do with it.

And that's exactly my question to you. From where did you hear Mr. Hager is teamed up with a modeler? This is far from what I have interpreted based on the many reports the model was purchased. Perhaps you have never heard of sites similar to TurboSquid? I'm not insinuating this is the place of purchase for Peter, however, I do question where you may be getting complete opposite information of what already three other people in this thread have heard. On Peter's website, during the making of the model, he talked about working with the modeler, the changes he requested, the changes to made to the model afterwards, etc.

Can you share where you have received this information? All other readings I have done indicate the model is purchased. Huh? Peter works with a modeler, and pays the modeler for his time. How else would one team up with a modeler?

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph: Peter does work with a modeller. That's who made the A380 model. As for lack of a 3D cockpit: Peter's argument is that good 2D panels are better for practicing to use the real thing than 3D cockpits. Considering that real life Airbus pilots use his planes to practice flying, I'd say he makes a pretty good argument. If you want an Airbus model which simulates the real thing very closely, i.e., it flies and handles right on the numbers, then it's a good buy.

There's a slightly better way to do this: email the companies to tell them you've converted their sceneries to run with X-Plane, but that you really wish they'd come out with X-Plane native versions. The more people who email them, the more they may think about developing for us.

Well, Cameron, I guess we'll just have to disagree.